Get a ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: comments are returned oldest-first and comments written through a token are flagged 'via AI', which an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field inventory earns its place. It is dense — a compact field list plus a parenthetical — but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly for a read tool. The remaining gap is the undocumented include_comments toggle, which matters for anyone wanting a cheaper fetch.

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 coverage is 50%: 'key' is fully documented in the schema (format, case-insensitivity), but 'include_comments' has no schema description at all. The description mentions comments as part of the payload but never explains that include_comments controls them or what omitting them does.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one ticket by key') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from search_tickets and the list tools. An agent can tell this is the single-record fetch without opening 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 phrase 'by key' implies the selection condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_tickets (which is the natural alternative for non-key lookups) or update_ticket/change_status. 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.