alga_tickets_get_by_external_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that this resolves a ticket through an external-system link, but it says nothing about what happens when no linked ticket exists or whether multiple tickets could match.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the keying mechanism immediately after. No filler, no redundancy, and nothing an agent must read past before understanding the operation.

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 lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It is still incomplete on the optional external_parent_id parameter and on not-found behavior, both of which an agent would need to call this reliably.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does partially compensate: it explains that 'system' is the other system's name and 'external_id' is the record's ID there. However, the third parameter, external_parent_id, is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters completely undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the ticket') plus the exact lookup key ('system's name and the record's ID there'), which is far more precise than the name alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling like alga_tickets_get to draw the boundary, but the external-link keying makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implicitly defined: call this when you have an external system name and a record ID from that system rather than a ticket ID. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alga_tickets_get or alga_tickets_search as the alternative for native-ID or free-text lookups.

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