get_ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious context: cross-project IDs return 'not found' identically to nonexistent IDs, 'deletable' should be read before proposing deletion, briefing is null on non-briefing tickets, and effort/minutes are not derived from each other. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

It is front-loaded and every sentence carries domain information, but it is a dense wall of text well beyond what a single-resource getter normally needs, bundling impact scales, briefing semantics, effort caveats, Markdown notes, deletion rules, and 404 behavior into one paragraph. The effort/'low ticket can be an afternoon' passage is the most rambling and could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: impact's 1-4 scale, briefing's subfields (edition, analysis part, extendsTicketId), effort's nature, and error semantics. For a domain this intricate, nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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%, and both parameters (ticketId with its '#14' form, projectId from list_projects) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further syntax or format detail about the parameters, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Get one ticket') and immediately scopes the single-ticket granularity by enumerating exactly which fields come back, so an agent can distinguish it from list_tickets without opening a schema. The return-field inventory (description, labels, owner, due date, effort, impact, thread count) makes the tool's remit 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?

Usage is largely implied by 'Get one ticket', and the only explicit routing hint is a narrow one: 'when a person asks for something quick, use maxMinutes on list_tickets'. That resolves a specific effort-vs-minutes confusion but does not say when to reach for get_ticket versus list_tickets, get_briefing_edition, or list_ticket_comments. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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