search_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — the ordering rule (most urgent first, then oldest first) — but says nothing about pagination beyond the schema's limit, result truncation, or what matching means (substring vs token).

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, the operational purpose first and the ordering guarantee second. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant behavior 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is in annotations. However, for a six-parameter search tool the filter-combination semantics remain undocumented, which is the main thing that could cause a malformed or over-narrow query.

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 17%: only 'query' has a description. The description's phrase 'text and filters' does not explain the key ambiguity for the three array filters — whether multiple values are OR-ed within a field and AND-ed across fields — nor what unassigned_only overrides. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('tickets') plus the two mechanisms of retrieval: text and filters. It is distinguishable from get_ticket (single fetch) by implication, but it never explicitly contrasts with its siblings such as search_kb or ticket_stats.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any of the seven sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the discovery tool before reaching for get_ticket or ticket_stats, and nothing tells it whether search should precede direct retrieval.

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