tomticket_check_email_blacklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Nao altera dados', making clear the operation is read-only and side-effect-free. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but for a simple blacklist check the non-mutating guarantee is the most important 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 two short sentences, with the main action front-loaded and a concise side-effect disclaimer afterward. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation: what is checked, which email is checked, and that no data is modified. It omits an explicit return-value format, but 'consulta se' plus the tool name make the boolean nature inferable, and no annotations or schema make further detail strictly necessary.

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 clarify the parameter's meaning; it does by indicating that the 'email' parameter is the address checked against the blacklist. It adds no format, normalization, or case-sensitivity guidance, but the single parameter's name and role are sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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 specific verb ('Consulta') and a precise resource ('blacklist de abertura de chamados por email'), clearly stating what the tool checks. It also distinguishes itself from the many ticket/customer tools in the sibling list, and no sibling covers email blacklist functionality.

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 embeds the relevant context: the blacklist applies to opening tickets via email, so an agent can infer when to call this tool, such as before email-based ticket creation. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool duplicates this capability, so the omission is not harmful.

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