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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that multiple tickets are retrieved in a single call and that errors are handled individually (errors returned separately in errors[]). Annotations only state readOnly and idempotent; this error resilience is a unique behavioral trait.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then adds the critical error-handling detail. There is no fluff or redundancy; 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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and error behavior, but it omits any explanation of the boolean parameters or what the response structure looks like beyond the errors[] mention. For a simple tool, it's adequate but leaves gaps for the two boolean flags.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It clarifies ticket_numbers (by numbers) but provides no meaning for show_entities or include_filled_entity booleans, which remain opaque. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameters.

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 function: 'Detalha um ou vários chamados pelos números' (details one or more tickets by numbers). This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like tiflux_list_tickets (which lists all tickets) by focusing on retrieval by specific numbers.

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 implies usage when you have specific ticket numbers, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like tiflux_list_tickets. The error-handling behavior is mentioned, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools.

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