Get Ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the response includes 'all messages', which goes beyond the bare 'get ticket' statement. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential pagination or ordering of messages, so it adds limited behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key detail ('with all messages'). There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary words, making it perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key output characteristic (all messages). While it does not detail the exact return fields, the tool's simplicity and the sibling tool context (listTickets, streamTicketMessages) make it adequately complete. A dedicated output schema or a brief note on response structure would make it a 5.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly define 'id' as the ticket identifier, but the tool name and description 'Get a single support ticket' make it strongly implied. This partial compensation for the missing schema description warrants a 3, but a more explicit statement of the parameter's role would push it higher.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'single support ticket', and explicitly notes it includes 'all messages'. This distinguishes it from listTickets (which lists multiple) and streamTicketMessages (which streams messages), making its purpose unambiguous even without inspecting the schema.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a specific ticket when you have its ID, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like listTickets for discovery or streamTicketMessages for real-time updates, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance. This is a minor gap, giving a 4 rather than 5.

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