get_ticket_addons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only access via 'readonly-owner' but does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, requires specific permissions, or describe the response format. The API mapping is an implementation detail, not behavioral transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The API mapping and tier tag add extra context without excessive verbosity. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior and parameter semantics. It does neither, and the subscriptionID-to-ticket relationship is left ambiguous. The description is too minimal for a tool with no structured metadata beyond the input schema.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the sole parameter 'subscriptionID'. It fails to clarify how a subscriptionID relates to a ticket, which is potentially confusing. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('line-item addons on a ticket'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_subscription_initial_addons. The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a 'tier: readonly-owner' and the underlying POST endpoint, but does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides no comparative context with sibling tools.

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