support_get_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the HTTP route, which gives no behavioral context such as whether all tickets are returned or how results are bounded. Nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size is disclosed.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, with no wasted prose. The endpoint path is arguably redundant with the tool name but is harmless and cheap.

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?

It is a trivial zero-parameter list tool, so the definition is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could have said what a ticket entry contains and whether the list is bounded. As written, an agent knows what it fetches but not what it gets back.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-level meaning the description could reasonably add.

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?

"Get ticket list" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the endpoint path reinforces that this is a list-only read of support tickets. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like support_get_one or support_get_messages, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus support_get_one (single ticket) or support_archive, and no mention of whether the list is filtered, paginated, or complete. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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