autotask_search_ticket_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the API threshold behavior, which is positive. But it doesn't state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any other side effects. The safety profile is only implied by the search nature.

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, no extra words. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical usage guidance. Exceptionally efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Missing description of return format (e.g., array of note objects) since no output schema exists. The tool is named 'search' but parameters only support listing by ticketId; no filter or keyword support is clarified. Basic completeness is lacking for an HTTP API search tool.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (ticketId and pageSize including defaults and limits). The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. No additional context is provided.

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 'Search for notes on a specific ticket,' identifying the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like autotask_get_ticket_note (single note retrieval) and autotask_create_ticket_note (creation). The note about API thresholds adds specificity.

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 a strong warning about API threshold when iterating across many tickets, guiding the agent to scope the parent list first. However, no explicit comparison to sibling tools like autotask_get_ticket_note or when to use search vs. get. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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