Search tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching ticket IDs plus suggestions and that it uses a specific syntax. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though the search nature implies safety.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first explains functionality and syntax, the second explains the return value. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and return value, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks explanation of the pagination parameters (limit, start) which are important for a search tool. Overall, it is reasonably complete but has a notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the query parameter by explaining the syntax and providing examples, but it does not describe the limit, start, or locale parameters at all. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 that the tool searches tickets using a specific phrase syntax, with examples like 'printer' or 'Resource:"First Level Support"'. It distinguishes the search action from sibling tools such as create_ticket or get_ticket by its purpose and return value.

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 provides usage guidance by referencing the Tickets application's syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied but not formalized.

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