list_tickets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey that the operation is read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by disclosing the sort order ('most recently updated first') and the specific fields the search applies to ('subject/department/status'), which helps an agent predict response ordering. It does not mention pagination or limits, but the annotation coverage keeps this from being a major gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence: first the core action and scope, then ordering, then the optional parameter behavior. Every clause earns its place and there is no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description provides the necessary orientation: what the ticket list covers, the ordering, and what the search filter can match. It does not explain pagination or the response shape, but the tool is simple and the annotations already cover the safety profile. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke competently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a raw 'search' string with a default, and there is no property description in the schema. The description meaningfully compensates by marking the parameter optional and explaining it matches 'subject/department/status,' which an agent would not know from the schema alone. It is not exhaustive, as it doesn't specify case sensitivity or substring matching, but for a single parameter this is solid coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('this account's support tickets'), so an agent immediately understands the tool's scope. It also says tickets are sorted 'most recently updated first,' which differentiates it from siblings like get_ticket, list_ticket_replies, and create_ticket even without explicitly naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives solid context for when the tool is relevant — listing all support tickets and optionally filtering via search — but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_ticket, list_ticket_replies, or list_ticket_departments. The choice of tool is implied by the name and resource, but not explicitly routed. There is no guidance about exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.