tomticket_list_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states the operation is read-only ('Não altera dados') and paginated at 50 per page, but does not disclose return format, default ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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, each earning its place. The main action and pagination are front-loaded, followed by a clear safety guarantee. No redundant content.

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 22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema description coverage, this description is insufficiently complete. It omits return value structure, parameter semantics, pagination navigation, and ordering defaults, which an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly for varied use cases.

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 only 27% and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the 22 parameters. The generic 'filtros da API' adds no detail about how to use filters like situation, creation_date_ge, or customer_type_id, leaving the agent without adequate guidance.

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 states a clear action ('Lista chamados da conta'), scope ('da conta'), and key characteristics ('com filtros da API', 'paginado, 50 por pagina'). It distinguishes from get_ticket and list_open_tickets by naming and scope, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_open_tickets, get_ticket, or other listing tools. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate.

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