Resumo de tickets por departamento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: aggregation logic (counts + percentage), default ordering (largest to smallest), optional filters, and a genuine limitation with rationale (no priority/period because that would force N full searches). It omits auth/read-only status and rate behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the usage example, then the exclusions. Three sentences with no filler; the final parenthetical is long but earns its place by justifying the exclusion.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly describes the return shape (counts plus percentages, ordered). For a read aggregation tool it covers purpose, filters, output, and limits; only the 'ordem' parameter and safety/read-only context are left unaddressed.

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 four of five params (status, area, operador, limite) and adds meaning for 'limite' as top N, but never mentions the 'ordem' (asc/desc) parameter or allowed values, leaving a documented gap.

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 ('Conta os tickets') plus resource scope ('de cada departamento') and adds what is computed (counts and percentage). The 'por departamento' scope cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling resumo_tickets_por_status/area/operador/prioridade tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger example ('Use para perguntas como "quantos tickets existem em cada departamento?"') and explicit exclusions ('Não aceita prioridade nem período de abertura'), even explaining why. This is textbook when-to-use / when-not guidance.

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