Get ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description's additional value is limited to listing returned fields, which largely duplicates the existing output schema, and it says nothing about not-found/permission behavior or how the `include` option changes the response payload.

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, purpose front-loaded before the return payload, with no filler. The second sentence's field enumeration partially restates what the output schema already declares, a minor 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?

With an output schema, rich annotations and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to establish purpose and it does. Minor gaps: what happens when the ticket ID does not exist, and any permission constraints, are unstated.

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%, including the enum of includable relations and the caveat that conversations returns at most 10. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

"Get a ticket by ID" states a specific verb and resource, and the ID-based lookup implicitly separates this from bulk siblings like get_tickets and filter_tickets. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls short of the 5-level bar for sibling differentiation.

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 trigger condition (you already have a ticket ID) is implied by the tool name and the required ticket_id parameter, but the description never says when to prefer get_tickets/filter_tickets for searching, nor what to do if the ID is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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