search_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about result limits, ordering, rate limits, or what a returned ticket contains. The only behavioral crumbs (page defaults, per_page max 100) live in the schema, not the description.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the syntax reference is organized as scannable examples plus a bullet list. It is a bit long, but each example demonstrates a distinct clause form rather than repeating.

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 query grammar is fully covered, which is the hard part, but with no output schema the description should say something about what comes back (fields, ordering, or result shape). Pagination exists in the schema but is never connected to result behavior.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description substantially enriches the most important parameter by enumerating the supported query prefixes and comparator syntax with worked examples. It does not touch page/per_page, which the schema already documents.

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 Zendesk support tickets') and adds the differentiating detail 'advanced query syntax'. It implicitly separates itself from article/feedback siblings by naming 'tickets', but never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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?

Usage is implied by the query examples (filter by status, tag, priority, date, subject), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer get_ticket, get_tickets_by_tag, or search_feature_feedback over this tool.

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