Get ticket SLA / timing metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by listing the exact metrics fetched, going beyond the annotations to clarify what data is returned. No contradiction with 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the main metrics returned. It could mention the return format or potential errors, but for a simple fetch operation with clear annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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% – the only parameter 'ticketId' has a description. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Numeric ticket id.' It mentions 'ticket' but that is already clear. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'ticket', and explicitly lists the specific metrics returned (first reply time, resolution times, reopens, replies, wait times). It distinguishes itself from siblings like zendesk_get_ticket (general info) and zendesk_ticket_audits (audit trail) by focusing solely on timing and SLA data.

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 specifies it is for a single ticket and lists the metrics returned, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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