Resumo de tickets por área

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the result shape (counts, percentages, open/closed totals, ordering). However it omits default values (e.g. default limite/ordem), permission or auth requirements, and does not explain why it claims fixed descending order while an 'ordem' asc/desc parameter exists.

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 first states the grouping/output then enumerates filters; every clause contributes information and there is no redundancy.

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, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description adequately explains both the return composition and the filter set. Missing details are defaults, date format, and the 'ordem' parameter, which keep it short of fully self-contained.

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 names the filter dimensions and explicitly ties dataInicio/dataFim to the period and limite to 'top N'. It fails to mention the 'ordem' parameter and gives no format hints (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD), leaving a small gap, but coverage is otherwise strong.

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 and resource ('Agrupa os tickets por área'), the exact output composition (quantidade, percentual, total de abertos/fechados) and the ordering, so it is immediately distinguishable from siblings like resumo_tickets_por_status or resumo_tickets_por_operador.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing the available filter dimensions (status, departamento, operador, prioridade, período, limite) hints at when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison against the many sibling 'resumo_*' tools.

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