get_ticket

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

The description discloses that the output includes readable labels ('avec libellés lisibles'), adding useful context beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover potential edge cases, auth requirements, or error behaviors, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary wording and is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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 parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core function and adds a note about readable labels. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter-level detail, which is partially compensated by the self-explanatory parameter name and output schema.

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 description does not specifically explain the ticket_id parameter; it only refers to 'un ticket', which is already evident from the parameter name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's field name and type.

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 tool returns the complete detail of a ticket, using the verb 'Retourne' and identifying the resource ('un ticket'). It distinguishes from list/search tools by emphasizing a single ticket's full detail, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tickets or search_tickets. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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