eb_ticket_class

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, only specifying that it fetches a single resource by id. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but with the annotation covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and providing a prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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 get-by-id operation with annotated read-only behavior and fully documented parameters, the description provides adequate context. It includes a helpful pointer to the sibling listing tool, but does not elaborate on return values or error handling, which are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, describing them as numeric ids. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 gets one ticket class by id, specifying the resource and operation. It also distinguishes from the listing sibling by instructing to use eb_ticket_classes first, which differentiates it from the list tool.

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 a clear usage context by directing users to list ticket classes first, which is a necessary prerequisite to obtain the ticket_class_id. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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