Retrieve Ticket Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry this burden. It implies an read-only operation with 'Check' and gives examples of possible statuses, but it doesn't disclose error handling, permissions, or whether status updates propagate elsewhere. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but not rich.

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, each with a distinct purpose: the first states the action, the second maps it to a real-world usage context. No padding or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, and use context. It doesn't list all possible statuses, but an agent can infer the general return shape. This is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with ticketId already described as 'Ticket ID returned by create_support_ticket, e.g. tkt-5001.' The description adds no further detail about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a unique verb-resource pair: 'Check the current status of a previously created support ticket by its ticket ID.' This distinguishes it from siblings such as create_support_ticket, customer_lookup, and retrieve_knowledge through its object and action.

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 an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'Use this before telling a customer their issue is still in progress vs. resolved.' However, it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance isn't as complete as it could be.

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