get_ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the purpose—it does not mention the default summary response or the effect of the 'raw' parameter. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal value on top of the structured metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function with zero redundancy. It is concise and to the point, ideal for quick comprehension.

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 get-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is sufficient. It does not mention the default return format (summary vs. raw), but that is captured in the 'raw' parameter description. Given the simplicity, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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% (both 'id' and 'raw' have descriptions). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a specific ticket'), and the key qualifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from list_tickets (which returns multiple) and get_ticket_comments (which returns comments). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 primary use case: when you have a ticket ID and need the ticket details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., 'use list_tickets to search'). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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