search_support_cases

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, return format, access requirements, or any side effects. Even the read-only nature is assumed rather than stated.

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 a single sentence, making it concise and efficient. However, it is so under-specified that it sacrifices substance for brevity, which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 6-parameter tool requiring a parent resource, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, pagination, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including enums and defaults, so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the generic 'various filters,' meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool searches support cases, using the verb 'search' and a specific resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_support_cases' or 'get_support_case', as the phrase 'various filters' is vague and lacks detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain whether search is text-based, field-based, or how it differs from listing cases. It merely says 'with various filters,' implying usage but leaving context ambiguous.

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