List a requester's tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that results are 'most recent first' and that it lists 'their reported tickets' (tickets where the user is the requester). No contradiction, and adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 with no fluff: first states purpose and ordering, second gives use case and guidance on obtaining userId. 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, but the tool likely returns a list of tickets. Description covers purpose and parameter hints. Given openWorldHint, it's mostly complete for a simple list tool; could mention pagination or response structure, but not critical.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (userId, limit) with descriptions. The description adds negligible param-specific info beyond what schema provides. 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?

The title 'List a requester's tickets' and description clearly state the tool lists tickets for a specific user (requester), sorted most recent first. The use case 'seeing whether a customer has raised this before' distinguishes it from sibling tools like zendesk_organization_tickets.

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 context for when to use (checking customer history) and how to get the userId from other tools (zendesk_get_ticket or zendesk_search_users). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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