consultar_ticket

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains this is a read-only network operation, provides the exact code format, and notes case-insensitivity. It could be more explicit about what happens when a ticket is not found or network errors occur, but for a read-only lookup tool, this is quite thorough.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, context, and use cases. It avoids unnecessary fluff and uses whitespace effectively. Every section adds value, from the primary description to the code format details and case-insensitivity note.

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 read-only query tool with one parameter, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to invoke the parameter, and format validation rules. It's accessed via read-only operation, has no nested objects, and has an output schema. Could add network/rate-limit caveats, but those are typically beyond the scope of a tool description.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and a single L2 parameter 'codigo', the description does the heavy lifting by defining the format: 'TCK-0000' with the number portion being any number. While the description could add regex or validation rules, it provides the key semantic information: the acceptance criteria for the code format and that it's case-insensitive. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool is FOR (to fetch a ticket by its id), which is implied by the tool name 'consultar_ticket.'

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Consulta los datos de un ticket específico') and clearly defines what it does. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on single-ticket queries, while 'listar_estados_de_ticket' implies a different purpose. The code format and use cases further clarify the tool's intended purpose.

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 explicitly states a primary use case ('El agente pregunta por un ticket con su código') and clarifies it's read-only ('Únicamente lee información de un ticket, no modifica nada'). It also explains that it hits the network ('Toca la red'), implying it may have performance implications. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools.

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