Help Ticket Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: login requirement, no attachment download, reply detection by comparing history authors to the original requester, null for missing fields, and source-local dates with no assumed timezone. It stops short of error behavior for an invalid or inaccessible ticket ID.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by scope, semantics, and prerequisites in short declarative clauses. Every sentence earns its place (null handling, timezone, auth), though the field enumeration partially duplicates what the output schema will return.

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 a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers auth, scope, null and timezone semantics well. The remaining gap is include_sensitive, whose effect is undocumented anywhere, leaving the default behavior unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters and it only half does. 'numeric ID' describes ticket_id but actually conflicts with the schema type (string), and include_sensitive (default false, a privacy-relevant switch) is never mentioned at all, leaving an agent unable to know sensitive fields can be excluded.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Read one help ticket') with the exact payload enumerated (title, description, unit, category, status, dates, messages, replies, attachments). The phrase 'one ... by numeric ID' functionally distinguishes it from the sibling list tool obs_get_help_tickets, and 'Does not download attachments' scopes it away from download_resource.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is clearly the single-ticket fetch (needing an ID) versus the list sibling, and 'Requires login' gives a prerequisite plus 'Does not download attachments' gives a scope exclusion. But it never explicitly says when to choose this over obs_get_help_tickets or how to obtain the ticket_id.

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