lerg_tandem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that data comes from SQL JOINs across multiple tables, but does not disclose performance characteristics, pagination behavior, or timeout limits.

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 concise sentences, each carrying essential information: first states purpose and query options, second states return fields and data sources. No redundant words.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on input combinations and output fields. Lacks explanation of limit/offset pagination, but that is already in schema defaults.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by grouping parameters into query modes (NPA+NXX, switch CLLI, etc.) and stating return fields, exceeding baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Look up tandem routing information' and lists specific query methods and return fields (tandem switch, OCN, LATA, routing path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lerg_query or lerg_complex_query.

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?

Description explains when to use: query by NPA+NXX, switch CLLI, tandem CLLI, or carrier name pattern. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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