infoset_search_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the API quirk that unknown search params are silently ignored and everything is returned, which is real behavioral value. It does not state the operation is a non-mutating read, nor describe result contents or pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the matching rule before the caveat. The REST company-lookup note is somewhat tangential to an MCP call but earns its place by warning about absent functionality; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what a search returns and how paging works. It covers the input-side traps well but leaves the return shape and pagination contract to inference.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: query matches case-insensitively via contains on the subject only, and nonexistent keyword params are ignored. It does not elaborate on page/itemsPerPage interaction or status array semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 and resource ('Search Infoset tickets') and pins the matching semantics to subject text, case-insensitive contains. It distinguishes itself from full-text search, though it never names the closest sibling (infoset_list_tickets) to clarify when to use which.

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?

Gives concrete when-not guidance: Search/q/keyword parameters are ignored and return every ticket, so an agent will not misuse them. It also routes company-scoped queries to a REST workaround rather than a tool, but does not say when to prefer infoset_list_tickets or the batch getters.

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