autotask_search_ticket_charges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the expensive nature of unfiltered queries and the 10-result cap, which are critical behavioral traits. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but as a read-only search, transparency is adequate.

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—two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, context, and a critical warning. Every sentence is purposeful, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains what charges represent and the result cap. It lacks details on charge structure or pagination behavior, but the sibling get tool can fill that gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 covers both parameters (ticketId, pageSize) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by stressing the recommendation for ticketId and explaining the cap on unfiltered results, exceeding baseline expectations.

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 it searches for charges on a specific ticket and defines charges as materials, costs, or expenses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_get_ticket_charge (single charge retrieval) and autotask_search_tickets (ticket search).

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 recommends providing ticketId and warns that unfiltered queries are expensive and capped at 10 results. It implies the primary use case is filtered searches but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for creating/deleting charges.

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