kyt_get_by_phone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions querying in 'full or lite' mode without explaining what these modes entail, what data is returned, whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the mode explanation for better clarity.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't adequately explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings. For a query tool with multiple parameters and sibling alternatives, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'telefone' (phone) and 'modo' (mode) but doesn't explain the format expected for phone numbers (e.g., international format, array handling) or what 'full' and 'lite' modes mean. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 states the tool 'Consulta a API KYT por telefone' (queries the KYT API by phone), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'KYT' represents and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'kyt_get_by_document' or 'kyt_get_by_email' beyond the phone parameter. The mention of 'full ou lite' modes adds some specificity but doesn't fully clarify the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kyt_get_by_document' or 'kyt_get_by_email'. The description mentions 'full ou lite' modes but doesn't explain when to choose one over the other or what distinguishes them. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, 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.