Listar tickets fechados

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool both lists and counts and that pagination is supported, but says nothing about permissions, ordering of results, return shape, or limits beyond the filter names.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose before listing filters. Efficient, though the filter enumeration makes it slightly list-heavy.

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 8-parameter, read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers filters and the list+count behavior but never describes what the returned records or counts look like, leaving an agent to guess at the response shape.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names all eight parameters, grouping dataInicio/dataFim as the closing-period filter and tying limite/pagina to pagination. It adds no per-field semantics (e.g., date format, or how area differs from departamento), keeping it short of a 5.

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 pair (lista e conta) and precise resource (tickets já encerrados, com data de fechamento), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like listar_tickets_abertos or listar_tickets. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 enumerates available filters, which implies usage, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over listar_tickets, listar_tickets_abertos, or the various resumo_* tools. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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