autotask_search_service_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes a 'search' (read-only) operation but does not state that it returns a list, mentions pagination, or notes any side effects. The absence of warnings about large result sets or performance impact is a gap.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing filters clearly), but it is not verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the return format, default page size, maximum results, or any caution about performance. For a search tool, these details are important for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely lists filter categories (company, status, date range) matching the schema properties, adding no extra detail about parameter values or usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 service calls and lists possible filters (company, status, date range). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like autotask_get_service_call or autotask_search_service_call_tickets, which target the same entity type.

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 implies usage when needing to find service calls by filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_service_call for a specific call) or any restrictions.

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