Get visit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that contact details are gated behind include_contact_details and cites the underlying endpoint, but it largely restates what the schema parameter already documents.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, which is the most useful information for an agent. The trailing endpoint reference ('Uses GET /visit/{visit_id}/') is somewhat redundant but doesn't obscure the content.

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 usefully describes the shape of the returned visit (tickets, transaction, share). An agent has enough to call it correctly, though it does not mention pagination or error behavior for a missing visit.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description's note that emails appear 'only with include_contact_details' adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 names the exact resource and enumerates the payload contents ('every ticket item, its transaction, and... the share'), which clearly separates it from list_visits and get_transaction. It is specific rather than tautological, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied.

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 implied by the required visit_id and the single-visit scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_transaction or list_visits. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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