infoset_get_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a single ticket's detail, which is the core behavior, but does not describe error handling, response contents, or any read-only guarantee. It is concise and truthful but lacks additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word ('Get', 'single', 'Infoset ticket detail', 'by ID') contributes to understanding the tool's 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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly indicates that a single ticket detail is returned by ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools that operate on tickets, leaving some selection nuance to the agent.

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 has 100% coverage, already describing 'ticketId' as 'Ticket ID'. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get single Infoset ticket detail by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Infoset ticket'), and explicitly scopes it to single-ticket-by-ID retrieval. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like infoset_list_tickets, infoset_search_tickets, and infoset_batch_get_tickets.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the intended use case (when you have a specific ticket ID), but there is no explicit mention of when not to use this tool, such as for batch retrieval (infoset_batch_get_tickets) or listing (infoset_list_tickets). No alternatives are named in the description.

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