List tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: full-text search covers subjects and message bodies, and status codes accept both full forms and short forms. This goes beyond annotations and helps correct invocation.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the action and filter options; the second provides essential status code syntax. No filler or redundant content.

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 a list tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose, filtering, and search behavior. Pagination is not described but is documented in the schema via limit/offset. No output schema exists, so return format is unspecified, but the essential usage is adequately covered.

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 enhances parameter understanding by naming the filter dimensions (client, status code, department, brand) and explaining the accepted status code values, including short-form matching. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 states it lists support tickets with specific filters (client, status, department, brand) and full-text search, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket (single ticket) and list_contracts (different resource). The verb 'list' plus resource 'support tickets' is specific and actionable.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to list tickets with various filters or search. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_ticket for a single ticket'), but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the primary use case. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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