Get Ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the response contents (customer, messages, tags, custom fields, assignees, satisfaction survey, metadata) and explicitly labels it as the 'raw API response,' which helps an agent set expectations about data granularity. It does not contradict the openWorldHint annotation, as it describes a read operation that may return varied data but no side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the HTTP method and purpose. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second sentence provides the alternative and lists response components without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 single-ticket read operation, the description is quite complete: it specifies the endpoint, the raw nature of the response, the key data fields, and the alternative for a cleaner view. With readOnly annotations and no output schema, this provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling are not critical for this type of operation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and relationships). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does mention 'custom fields' in the response, which loosely relates to the relationships parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden and the description provides marginal extra value.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Retrieve a single ticket's raw API response') and resource (ticket by ID), and explicitly distinguishes it from gorgias_smart_get_ticket by contrasting the raw response with the LLM-optimised view. This makes it easy for an agent to know exactly what this tool does and how it differs from a sibling.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the alternative tool: 'For a clean, LLM-optimised view... use gorgias_smart_get_ticket instead.' This gives a clear when-not-to-use directive and names the alternative, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidelines.

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