Get service ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds value by enumerating the payload contents (priority, planned duration, service address, customer phone, logged hours), which is exactly the sort of return-shape context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the resource and key fields. There is mild repetition between the first sentence's field list and the second sentence's 'plus' clause, but nothing wasteful enough to obscure the call.

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 does the right work by naming the notable fields returned, and the single-parameter surface needs little more. It stops short of describing shape or depth of nested entities (customer, technicians), which would be the remaining 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% and the single parameter already documents its own provenance ('service_ticket_id from list_service_tickets'), so the description merely echoes the schema rather than adding format or lookup guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reads one Contractor Foreman service ticket by service_ticket_id') and explicitly positions it relative to list_service_tickets, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening the schema.

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 establishes the relationship to list_service_tickets ('what list_service_tickets gives plus...' and 'service_ticket_id from list_service_tickets'), implying the list-then-get workflow, but never states an explicit when-not or an alternative for bulk retrieval.

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