tomticket_search_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), which is a useful side-effect guarantee, but it does not describe what the search returns, how matching works, pagination behavior, or any limits. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only note is a valuable, economical addition. 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks return format information, pagination behavior, guidance on category_id usage, and any distinction from sibling list tools. An agent could call it with just 'query', but would not know how to use the optional parameters effectively or interpret the results.

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 33%: only 'query' has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning at all and does not explain 'page' or 'category_id'. Since the schema also leaves these undocumented, an agent has to guess their semantics.

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 specific verb ('Pesquisa' = searches) and a clear resource ('artigos da base de conhecimento' = knowledge base articles). It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tomticket_list_articles, which is a similar read-only listing tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tomticket_list_articles or tomticket_read_article. There is no mention of when a search is preferable to a list, or what distinguishes a search from browsing all articles.

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