Search similar tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool uses semantic search over ticket history plus keyword search, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, ordering of results, or what 'similar' means. The description is adequate but could be more informative.

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?

Description is only two sentences: the first explains the tool's action and method, the second gives usage guidance. There is no unnecessary information, and every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 tool has two parameters fully described in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the purpose and usage, but lacks details on the output format (e.g., what fields are returned, how similarity is scored) and more behavioral context. While functional, it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example for the `issue` parameter ('PDF export hangs on large files') but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Both parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to add much.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds past Zendesk tickets similar to a described issue using semantic search and keyword search. The verb 'find' is specific, the resource is clearly identified as past Zendesk tickets, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on customer context, solution assessment, or daily work summarization.

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?

Description explicitly says to use this tool 'before triaging a new ticket to check for precedent,' providing a clear usage context. While it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, the provided context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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