Get a support ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the returned data (classification, replies, status overlay) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'status overlay'. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds meaningful detail.

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 a single required parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for basic use. It highlights the key components of the return value, though it does not explain any preconditions or edge cases. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'ticket_id' parameter beyond the schema's title and constraints. The phrase 'one source ticket' hints at the target but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one source ticket'), and enumerates the included details (local agent classification, replies, status overlay). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tickets_list_new, which lists new tickets, and tickets_update_classification, which modifies.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single existing ticket by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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