list_internet_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the tool has filters and lists technology codes, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, sorting, or whether the response includes only active connections or all. The warning against fabrication is good, but overall behavioral details are sparse for a complex list endpoint.

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 concise with two sentences plus a code table. The warning is front-loaded for importance. Every sentence adds value, though the technology table could be integrated into parameter descriptions for more structured readability.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers filters and technology types but lacks details on pagination, response format, and usage with sibling list tools. The warning is a strong addition, but the overall description leaves gaps an agent might need to infer.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing technology codes (R,T,O,H,S,P,D) which are not fully explained in the schema's enum description. However, it does not explain how filters combine (AND/OR logic), default pagination values, or the meaning of the 'relaciones' parameter. The added value is marginal.

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 tool lists internet service connections and mentions filters. It distinguishes itself from get_internet_connection (which retrieves a single connection) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_tv_connections or list_phone_connections.

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 provides a strong warning against fabricating data on failure, which is valuable usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_internet_connection for a single record, or list_internet_connections_log for history), nor does it indicate required prerequisites or typical use cases.

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