list_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any constraints on use. While 'list' implies read-only behavior, the description does not mention sorting, scope, or any other behavioral traits beyond listing and pagination parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by bullet-point parameter clarifications. It is free of fluff, but the 'type' vs 'ticket_type' inconsistency and the slight repetition of pagination information prevent a perfect score.

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 description provides essential filter code mappings but lacks explicit confirmation that filters are optional, fails to clarify the relationship between 'type' and 'ticket_type', and does not explain pagination mechanics beyond naming. Given no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this is only partially complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds valuable numeric mappings for status and type values, which is necessary given the schema provides no enums. However, it refers to 'type' while the schema parameter is 'ticket_type', creating a mismatch that could lead to incorrect usage. Pagination parameters are only described as 'pagination' without explaining offset/limit behavior, so the compensation for the 0% schema coverage is incomplete.

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 lists tickets with optional pagination, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like search_tickets, which also retrieves ticket data, so it misses the opportunity for explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about appropriate use cases. The description merely states functionality without clarifying relationships to sibling tools like search_tickets or get_ticket.

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