Get a ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the payload (availability, cost, and the event(s) booked, with course-wide events for course tickets), but says nothing about redaction behavior, errors for unknown IDs, or pagination.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, though the missing subject/verb makes it read as a fragment rather than a properly front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 carries the return-value burden and does a partial job by naming the returned fields. However, for a read tool whose annotations are already informative, the absence of usage context and any mention of the contact-detail toggle leaves it only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, with both ticket_id and include_contact_details documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., ID format constraints or the effect of toggling contact details) beyond what the schema already states.

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 conveys the resource (a ticket type) and enumerates what it returns (availability, cost, booked events), but it is a verbless fragment that never states the action ('retrieve/fetch by ID'). It also does not differentiate from siblings like get_event, get_location, or list_event_tickets.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_event_tickets or get_event. The only hint about usage is the implicit assumption that a ticket_id is already known, which the agent must infer.

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