tdx-ticket-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond maxResults parameter), or what format/search logic is used. 'Search TDX tickets with filters' implies a query operation but lacks operational details.

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 at just 5 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of search this performs (full-text? filtered list?), what the results look like, how filters combine, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to rely heavily on the parameter schema alone.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'filters' generally. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 'Search TDX tickets with filters' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (TDX tickets), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'tdx-ticket-get' or 'tdx-ticket-feed-get'. It mentions filters but doesn't specify what kind of search this performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tdx-ticket-get' (single ticket retrieval) or 'tdx-ticket-feed-get' (feed-based access). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations compared to other ticket-related tools in the sibling list.

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