Listar tickets congelados

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (returns tickets where is_frozen is true) and that filters/pagination are optional, but says nothing about permissions, the default result size, ordering, or return shape for a read operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the purpose and then lists filters in a compact clause. Every element earns its place, though the filter enumeration is dense and slightly long.

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 nine-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes purpose and parameter meaning but omits return format, default limit/pagination behavior, and ordering. Adequate to invoke correctly but incomplete on behavior.

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 compensate; it maps all nine parameters to meanings and adds useful context for two of them ('período de abertura (dataInicio/dataFim)' and 'paginação (pagina)'). But it only restates most field names without value formats, valid status values, or pagination defaults.

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+resource (lista os tickets) with a defining scope: tickets whose SLA clock is frozen (is_frozen). This distinguishes it from the generic listar_tickets and the many other ticket-listing siblings without naming them. Clear but relies on the reader to infer the sibling distinction rather than stating it.

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 implies when to use it (when you need frozen-SLA tickets) and enumerates the available filter dimensions. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like listar_tickets, listar_tickets_abertos, or the resumo_* tools, so routing is left to inference.

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