get_phone_connection

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

The description warns about not fabricating data on failure, which is a crucial behavioral trait. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, or specific performance characteristics. The warning is valuable but partial.

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 is extremely concise: one sentence for the core purpose, and one sentence for critical behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 that the tool has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and adds a crucial caveat. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. However, it could briefly mention what fields the detailed information includes to aid in deciding if this tool is needed over others.

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 has 100% coverage with one required parameter 'connection_id' and its description 'Phone connection ID'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or location of the ID. According to the rubric, high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3, which is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific phone/telephony connection'), and explicitly includes the variant ('includes SSMovil mobile'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'list_phone_connections' (which lists) and 'get_internet_connection' (which gets a different resource).

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 needing details of a specific connection, contrasting with listing tools. The explicit warning 'NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead' provides clear guidance on usage behavior in failure cases, but it does not explain when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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