totvs_usuarios_buscar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the minimum 3-character requirement for 'termo' and the default behavior of 'organization_ids' (None/[] means all visible orgs). This compensates well.

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 very concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by two bullet points for parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints and purpose. However, it does not mention response format or pagination, which might be helpful but is not critical for a simple search tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'termo' has a 3-character minimum, and 'organization_ids' can be None/[] for all visible organizations. This provides essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 searches for Zendesk users/contacts by name/email, optionally scoped by organization, and is useful for finding a requester_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with tickets, departments, etc., though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling 'totvs_contato'.

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 gives a specific use case ('Util pra descobrir o requester_id de alguem') and explains the optional organization scoping. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context provided is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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