get_ticket_history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds context by listing transaction types (comments, replies, status changes) but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or other behavioral traits. This matches the calibration example where adding some context yields a 3.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with the action and resource at the start. It includes useful detail about return content without any redundant or filler words.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable hint at return values by listing transaction types, but omits pagination and field selection context. It is adequate but leaves gaps about how the page/per_page and fields parameters affect the response.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter.

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 ('Get') and resource ('transaction history for a ticket'), and specifies the return type ('a list of transactions'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transaction and get_ticket by focusing on the history/list aspect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_transaction might be used for a single transaction or indicate any exclusions/alternatives. Only the purpose is stated, not usage context.

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