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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavioral context. It does add bulk support and the mention that SLAs are returned, but it leaves unclear how batch results are structured and how pagination behaves.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and result, the second adds bulk support. There is no fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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 description is an adequate basic scaffold: it states what the tool lists and that SLAs are included. However, with no output schema and four parameters, it should clarify whether desk_id remains required when desk_ids is passed and how limit and offset affect the listing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions desk_ids for bulk execution but does not explain desk_id, limit, or offset, and the mapping from 'mesa' to desk_id is only implicit.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Lista as prioridades configuradas numa mesa' and it specifies the result includes SLAs. This clearly separates it from sibling listing tools such as tiflux_list_desk_stages and tiflux_get_ticket_stages_slas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The only usage-adjacent note is the bulk support, but it does not explain when to prefer desk_ids over desk_id, nor when this tool should be chosen over other tiflux list tools.

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