List ClickBank tickets

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the 7-day date-window limit, which is a real behavioral constraint, but it does not add other behavioral context such as pagination semantics or response scope. That is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and the key constraint in the second. No filler, no repetition of schema details; the structure is front-loaded.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is a bit thin: it doesn't clarify default behavior when no filters are supplied, what a ticket result looks like, or how this relates to get_ticket/count_tickets. The schema and annotations cover a lot, and the date-window rule is the main added completion, but the agent is still left inferring some invocation expectations.

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?

Schema coverage is only 73% and leaves type/status/receipt unexplained. The description adds useful semantics by mapping ticket categories to support/cancel/refund, which helps interpret the cryptic enum values, and it states the relationship among the six date parameters. This compensates for some of the schema gaps.

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 states a concrete action ('Search') on a specific resource ('tickets') and enumerates ticket categories (support, cancel, refund). It is clear on what the tool does at a high level, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_ticket or count_tickets, so it misses the top score.

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 implies this tool is the place to search or list tickets ('Search support, cancel, and refund tickets') and adds a concrete filter constraint (date windows cannot exceed 7 days). It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointers to get_ticket/count_tickets, leaving the choice to inference.

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