consultar_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns all ticket information (status, responsible, client, interactions, custom fields, dates), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention possible error conditions (e.g., ticket not found) or rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first states the action and resource, the second lists the fields returned. Every word contributes value, and it is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the return value by listing key fields, which is sufficient for a lookup operation. Minor gaps remain, such as not describing behavior for non-existent tickets, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already describes ticketId as 'ID numérico do ticket no Movidesk (ex: 12345)' with 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'ID numérico' without adding new meaning, such as how to obtain the ID or format constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Busca' (fetches) and the resource 'ticket do Movidesk' by numeric ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_tickets_cliente and alterar_status_ticket. It also enumerates the kind of data returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage: when you need complete details of a single ticket by ID. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives, such as when to prefer listar_tickets_cliente for multiple tickets. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are given.

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