get_ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond what is already known, such as error handling or permissions. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and efficient. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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-one-ticket tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. The tool's behavior is fully captured by 'read one support ticket by ID', and no additional context about return values or side effects is necessary given the structured metadata.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter explanation burden. It says 'by ID', which clarifies that the 'id' property is the ticket identifier, but it does not elaborate on the expected format beyond the schema's pattern (TKT-####). The single parameter is straightforward, so this is adequate but not enriching.

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 'Read one support ticket by ID' uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('support ticket') with the identifier method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_tickets and search_knowledge, which serve different purposes.

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 usage when you have a specific ticket ID and need to fetch a single ticket, which is a reasonable inference. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_tickets or find_similar_tickets, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval).

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