list_phone_connections

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It warns about data fabrication with a 'NEVER' directive and the '⚠️' icon, which is critical for an AI agent. It also implies the tool is read-only (list) and may fail, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's default 50 per page. Still, the fraud warning is a strong transparency element.

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 relatively short (3 sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. The warning about data fabrication is important but could be integrated more tightly. There is no clutter or redundancy. It earns points for being succinct while still covering purpose and a strong behavioral note.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, key filters, and a critical behavioral warning. It does not describe return format, error scenarios beyond the fabrication warning, or how pagination works beyond per_page default. For a list tool with good schema documentation and no output schema, this is reasonably complete but could include more on response structure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning filterable dimensions (client, date, cut-off status) and the mobile identification hint, but does not explain each of the 8 parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself is detailed (e.g., enum values, date format hints), so the description's added semantic value is modest.

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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'phone/telephony service connections' with an explicit mention of 'SSMovil mobile'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_internet_connections' and 'get_phone_connection' by specifying the scope includes mobile connections and by listing available filters.

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 explicit usage context by listing filterable fields (client, date, cut-off status) and explaining how to identify mobile/SSMovil connections via 'telefonia_plan_movil=Y'. It also includes a strong warning against fabricating data when the tool fails. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_phone_connection' or 'list_internet_connections_log', which would elevate it to a 5.

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