zda_get_ticket_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it fetches the full definition, but does not disclose behavior for invalid/missing IDs, authorization requirements, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or error, nor any limitations (e.g., rate limits, required permissions). For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100% (only parameter 'id' is described with type, exclusivity). The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'by ID', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single Zendesk ticket_field'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It also specifies that it returns the full definition, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like zda_list_ticket_fields.

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 does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. However, for a simple get-by-ID tool, the intended use is implicit: use when you have a specific ID and need details. No misguidance, but no proactive guidance either.

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