search_tickets

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already marks this as read-only. The description adds the behavioral constraint that limit max is 100, and examples show valid query syntax. No contradictions with annotations.

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 is extremely concise: two sentences plus examples. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides actionable examples. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers all input parameters (query with examples, limit with max) and provides clear context for a search tool. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use this over list tickets, but it's sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides detailed example values for the 'query' parameter, showing format and operators. For 'limit', it specifies a maximum value (100), adding meaning beyond the schema's default. The description compensates well for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching tickets using Zendesk search syntax. It provides concrete examples that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_ticket (retrieve by ID) and get_tickets (list all). The verb 'search' and resource 'tickets' are explicit.

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 includes examples that imply usage patterns (e.g., filtering by status, requester, date). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer. The sibling list provides additional differentiation.

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