get_tickets

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 discloses the readonly nature via '[tier: readonly-owner]', the batch limit of 1000, and the underlying POST endpoint. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid IDs, partial results, or response format, which are relevant behavioral aspects.

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: one sentence for the main purpose, followed by two brief technical notes (endpoint and tier). Every segment adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple get-by-IDs tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, limit, and safety level. It could be enhanced by specifying behavior for missing IDs or response structure, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It clarifies that 'ticketIDs' are ticket/invoice IDs and adds a critical constraint of 'up to 1000', which is not present in the schema. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw array-of-numbers definition.

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 tool's function: 'Get full ticket (invoice) records for up to 1000 ticket IDs.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from search_tickets by emphasizing ID-based retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with search semantics, so it misses the top score.

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 when specific ticket IDs are known, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_tickets or other alternatives. The tier note and endpoint mapping provide context but do not clearly state 'use this when you have IDs' versus other criteria.

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