list_tv_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns against data fabrication, which is a helpful behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what the response format looks like (e.g., paginated object or raw list), or rate limits. The warning adds value but leaves significant 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 is extremely concise at two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and crucial behavioral warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It names the filter dimensions and adds a critical usage warning, but it doesn't describe the return type or pagination behavior. For a tool of this complexity, a bit more context (e.g., 'returns paginated results with connection details') would improve completeness.

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 provides a high-level summary of filter categories (client, date, status) which loosely groups the parameters, but it adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., date formats, enum meanings, or the 'relaciones' parameter). It doesn't enhance the schema's information.

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 TV service connections and identifies the three filter dimensions (client, date, status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_internet_connections and list_phone_connections by focusing specifically on TV connections. A score of 5 is not given because it doesn't explicitly state the scope (e.g., all connections for a client) or differentiate from the related get_tv_connection tool.

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 usage caution (never fabricate data, report errors), which guides agent behavior on failure. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_tv_connection (which likely returns a single connection), nor any prerequisites or context about pagination defaults.

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