Buscar ticket por número

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the return (full detail including SLA, comments and attachments), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It leaves minor unknowns such as behavior when the ticket number does not exist, but for a single-key read tool this is solid disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the usage rule. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies both the return content and the selection rule, which is everything an agent needs to pick and call it correctly. No sibling comparisons or edge cases are left materially unaddressed.

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%, but there is only one parameter and its name (numero) is echoed by the description's phrase 'pelo número', which conveys that it is the ticket identifier. No additional semantics (accepted range, formatting, external vs internal id) are added beyond the schema's integer constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (buscar o detalhe completo de um ticket) and enumerates what the payload contains (SLA, comentários, anexos). This distinguishes it from the many listar_* and resumo_* siblings and from buscar_tickets_por_texto, since it is keyed on a single ticket number.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('sempre que a pergunta citar um número de ticket específico') and even resolves a likely conflict case: it takes precedence 'mesmo que outros filtros também apareçam na frase'. That is an explicit routing rule against the alternative tools.

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