get_ticket

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent the operation is safe to call; the description adds only that the result includes a message thread, which is a minimal scoping detail. It does not disclose payload size, required authentication, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the purpose ('Get one support ticket with its message thread') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 getter with one fully documented parameter and a readOnlyHint, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the resource and the included thread, and the schema supplies the id source; however, with no output schema it could say slightly more about the content of the thread, so it stops short of fully complete.

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%: the single required id parameter is described as coming from get_outage_tickets. The tool description itself says nothing about parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'one support ticket' and adds 'with its message thread', clearly distinguishing this single-ticket fetch from the list operation in sibling get_outage_tickets. It answers what the tool does without unpacking the schema.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_outage_tickets or create_outage_ticket. The schema's parameter note ('Ticket id, from get_outage_tickets') implies a follow-up workflow, but the description text itself only implies usage through the word 'one'. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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