Get ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: comments are returned unless switched off, attachments always come along, and everything arrives in one call rather than requiring separate lookups.

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 with zero filler: the first defines the payload, the second gives the trigger condition. The most actionable guidance (when to call) is front-loaded after the payload summary and nothing is repeated.

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 usefully names what is returned (ticket, attachments, comments) and the default behavior for comments. It leaves return format, pagination, and error cases unstated, but for a simple single-resource read that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so ticketId, token, and includeComments are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of comments being included 'unless switched off' broadly maps to includeComments but adds no extra syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (a single ticket) and enumerates what comes back (attachments and comments). The word 'single' cleanly separates it from the sibling list_tickets, and the comment inclusion distinguishes it from list_ticket_comments.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: before replying (reply_to_ticket) or changing state (set_ticket_state), which is exactly the sequencing an agent needs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives for bulk retrieval, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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