Search FreeScout Tickets

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions that includeLastMessage provides a preview of the most recent message. It does not state that the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior, return format, or any limitations. It adds little beyond what is obvious from the word 'search', so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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—three sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes useful examples without verbosity. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient and to the point, earning a 4.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is markedly incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of state, status, mailboxId, textSearch, or pagination defaults, nor does it describe the return structure or ordering. It covers only a few parameters, leaving the agent with significant gaps for a complex search tool. Thus a score of 2 is warranted.

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 meaningful semantics for a few parameters: assignee (with 'unassigned' and numeric user IDs), time filters (relative formats like '7d'), and includeLastMessage (preview of latest message). However, schema description coverage is 0% and many parameters (page, state, status, mailboxId, textSearch, pageSize) are entirely undocumented in the description. It partially compensates for the low coverage, meriting a 3.

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 searches for tickets with explicit filter parameters. The verb 'Search' and resource 'FreeScout tickets' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_ticket or analyze_ticket, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous, earning a 4.

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 concrete usage examples for assignee (e.g., 'unassigned', number) and relative time filters (e.g., '7d', '24h'), and explains the includeLastMessage flag. It gives practical guidance on how to use the search, but does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. This justifies a 4.

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