get_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, the fact that different modes require different id semantics, or output differences per mode, even though limit/offset exist and modes return heterogeneous shapes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing wastes space. The telegraphic, comma-fragmented style is efficient but slightly cryptic for an agent parsing mode semantics.

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 7 parameters, 57% schema coverage, no output schema, and modes that return fundamentally different structures, the description does far too little. It never explains what 'id' means per mode, how 'user' relates to the developer mode, or what 'details' expands, leaving an agent to guess at invocation.

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?

The mode listing does map the enum values to what is returned (one ticket vs per-game/achievement/developer summary), which adds real meaning for the required parameter. However, the other six parameters (id, user, limit, offset, details, unofficial) get no explanation in the description, and schema coverage is only 57%.

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 names the resource precisely — 'Achievement bug tickets' — and enumerates the six retrieval modes (recent, ticket, game, achievement, developer, most_ticketed), so an agent understands this is a multi-mode ticket lookup rather than a generic list. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun phrase plus mode list is 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?

Listing the modes implies when each is appropriate, but the description never states conditions for choosing between them (e.g. when to use 'ticket' vs 'game'), and names no alternative sibling tools. Usage is inferred from the enum labels rather than explained.

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