accesso_get_ticket

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the response includes merchant instructions and optionally terms. This goes beyond what the annotations alone state and helps set expectations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains the identifying mechanism, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description plus annotations are sufficient. It explains what is returned, how to identify the ticket, and that terms are opt-in, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the index comes from accesso_get_order, which is already in the schema's index description, adding no new semantic information.

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 identifies the tool as returning a single admission from an accesso order in full detail, distinguishing it from the order-level tool by requiring the index from accesso_get_order. The resource and purpose are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to get one admission from an order, identified by index obtained from accesso_get_order. It implicitly establishes a workflow but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like accesso_get_wallet_passes or accesso_resolve_link.

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