autotask_search_ticket_history

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions ordering and client-side sorting/filtering, but does not specify if results are paginated or the structure of entries. Assumed read-only but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly defines the tool, second provides usage examples and additional context. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema provided, yet description does not explain the structure of audit trail entries. For a history tool, this is a notable omission, though input schema is well-covered. Could be more complete.

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 descriptions cover both parameters completely (coverage 100%). Description adds minimal extra value, only reinforcing that ticketId is required. Therefore baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves audit trail of field changes for a ticket with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `autotask_get_ticket_history`, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

Provides examples of questions it answers ('when did this ticket move...'), implying usage context. But lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, such as `autotask_get_ticket_details` for current state.

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