autotask_search_ticket_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that entries are ordered by Autotask and notes the required ticketId constraint. However, it omits details about return format, pagination behavior beyond pageSize, and whether history is limited by time or scope.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage examples and a practical note on ordering. Every sentence contributes value, and no unnecessary words are present.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and basic usage. However, it lacks details about the structure of returned entries, rate limits, or how to handle potential large result sets, leaving some gaps for effective agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that ticketId is required because Autotask does not support unscoped queries, providing slight additional semantics. It does not elaborate on pageSize beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 retrieves the audit trail of field changes for a ticket, including specific examples like status transitions and priority edits. However, it does not differentiate from a sibling tool named autotask_get_ticket_history, which might serve a similar purpose.

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 examples of questions the tool can answer, establishing clear use cases. It also mentions client-side sorting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the related get_ticket_history.

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