accesso_get_ticket

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

Given readOnlyHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes full detail and merchant instructions, with terms available on request. No side effects or safety contradictions.

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 compact sentences front-load the object returned and then explain how to identify the ticket. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple read-only ticket fetch: it defines what is returned, how to identify the ticket, and the optional terms flag. Without an output schema, a bit more return-structure detail could help, but the current text is adequate.

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%, and the description mostly repeats what the schema already says, especially about index coming from accesso_get_order. It adds no format, defaults, or cross-parameter constraints beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific resource: one admission from an accesso order, and specifies the detail level and optional terms. It also points to accesso_get_order as the source of the index, which differentiates this ticket-level tool from the order-level 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?

It gives a clear usage context: obtain an index from accesso_get_order, then fetch the individual ticket. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the workflow is unambiguous.

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