Get ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (subject, status, customer id, messages), which is useful context, but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid ticket or any access restrictions.

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 tight sentences: the action and returned fields come first, and the identifier format constraint follows. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it helpfully summarizes them; annotations cover read-only semantics and the lone parameter is fully specified. The only real gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor for a simple getter.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with a regex pattern and example. The description's 'digits only, for example 2318' merely repeats the schema, adding no new semantics; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one support ticket by its number') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It distinguishes itself from search_tickets only implicitly through 'one ... by its number' rather than naming the sibling, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 identifier: call this when you already have a ticket number. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the search_tickets alternative for cases where you only have a name or subject, and no exclusion guidance.

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