Get ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific metadata fields returned (status, client, assignees) but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as permissions, performance, or pagination. This is adequate for a simple read tool, but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a single, relevant pointer to a sibling tool. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only single-resource tool with strong annotations, a fully described schema, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It tells what the tool returns, points to a sibling for related content, and is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters: ticket_id as 'Ticket UUID' and with as 'Relations to load, e.g. "messages,client,users"'. The description does not add parameter-specific context, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get one ticket with its metadata (status, client, assignees)'. It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool by pointing to get_ticket_messages for the conversation, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it doesn't.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Use get_ticket_messages for the conversation.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to the appropriate sibling for a different need, which is clear and actionable.

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