list_custom_psa_tickets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by clarifying the scope limitation (custom PSA only). No additional behavioral traits like pagination or prerequisites are disclosed, but the tool is simple with no 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?

Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words. The key information (action, resource, limitation) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what it does and its boundary. Could mention that results may be empty, but that is implied.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter detail but none is required.

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 uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'Custom PSA tickets', and immediately distinguishes from managed PSA services. This clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from potential siblings, though no sibling lists any PSA tickets.

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 explicitly states the tool is for custom PSA only and excludes managed services, providing clear context. However, there is no sibling tool that lists PSA tickets, so no direct alternative is given. Still, the exclusion of managed PSA is helpful guidance.

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