Get Atera ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes 'fields returned by Atera,' indicating full field coverage, but it does not disclose not-found behavior or error conditions. This is adequate 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The key action and identifying information are front-loaded, and the trailing clause adds useful response context without bloating the definition.

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-only, idempotent get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. The annotations handle side-effect disclosure, and 'including fields returned by Atera' gives a reasonable expectation of the response. It could mention not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'numeric ticket ID' reinforces the schema's integer type and clarifies the parameter's role, but it does not add deeper meaning such as where the ID comes from or how it maps to Atera. For a single simple integer parameter, this is minimally adequate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one ticket'), and the identifying mechanism ('by numeric ticket ID'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling atera_tickets_list, which is for retrieving multiple 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 clearly implies the tool should be used when a single ticket is needed and its numeric ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one ticket by numeric ticket ID' phrasing provides clear context against the sibling list tool.

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