Buscar tickets por texto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Busca' implies a read-only operation and it discloses that all filters are optional and that results are paginated (limite, pagina), but it says nothing about the returned structure, result ordering, or behavior on zero matches. The most critical behavioral trait (read-only nature) is only implicit.

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: the first front-loads the core function and filter surface, the second supplies intent examples. No redundant restatement of the title, no filler.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the filters and intent but omits return shape, pagination semantics, and value formats for filtered fields. Adequate to invoke the tool, but not complete.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does enumerate nearly all of them (status, área, departamento, operador, prioridade, situação, dataInicio/dataFim, limite, pagina, texto) and clarifies they are optional filters. It adds pouco mais que os nomes, porém: it does not explain valid status values, the date format, or the units of limite/pagina, leaving gaps against a 0% coverage baseline.

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 (busca) and resource (tickets/chamados) plus the exact matching mechanism: 'cujo assunto (issue) ou descrição contenham o texto informado'. This text-match scope inherently separates it from siblings like listar_tickets or buscar_ticket_por_numero, which have no free-text criterion.

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?

Provides concrete usage context with example questions ('tickets sobre impressora', 'tickets abertos sobre queda de energia'), which tells the agent what kind of user intent maps here. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternatives (e.g., buscar_ticket_por_numero when a ticket number is known), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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