Resumo de tickets por cliente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: results are sorted by volume, and the summary is capped at 20 clients by default because client is not a small closed catalog (adjustable via limite). It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or the exact return shape, but the rationale for the cap is unusually informative.

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 dense sentences with the core grouping behavior front-loaded followed by the filter list and the limit caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or wasted.

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 9-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the returned metrics, ordering, the parameter set, and the default-limit behavior. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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, and it names every filter parameter (status, área, departamento, operador, prioridade, dataInicio/dataFim) plus limite and the ordering behavior. It lacks format detail (e.g. the YYYY-MM-DD pattern for dates), so it falls short of a full 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?

It states a precise verb and resource (group tickets by client/requester via contact_name) and describes the output (count and percentage per client, ordered descending). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling resumo_* tools that aggregate on status/area/priority/operator/department.

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?

It explains that the tool produces an aggregated per-client summary with optional filters, and contrasts it against the other 'dimensions' summarized by sibling tools. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over listar_tickets or buscar_ticket_por_numero; the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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