Get ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Read one ticket') and warns that the full record can be large and may contain personal data. This adds behavioral context beyond what structured data provides. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or idempotency, but the core safety trait is transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core action, a key parameter hint, and a data sensitivity warning. It does not discuss error behavior or edge cases, but the output schema fills return value details. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 explains the `fields` parameter's purpose (limit response, avoid large/personal data) and why it is useful. The `ticket_id` parameter is not explained in text, but its purpose is obvious from name and context. The description adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'one ticket with its fields and attributes'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_tickets' (multiple results) and 'create_ticket' (write) by specifying a single ticket retrieval. The purpose 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?

The description provides a usage hint to pass the `fields` parameter to limit response size and avoid personal data, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_tickets' for filtering, 'list_ticket_actions' for operations). The guidance is implied but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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