telefonica_analytics_call_stats_by_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('retorna'), but doesn't describe what 'consolidated statistics' includes, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical information about what 'consolidated statistics' actually means.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and what 'consolidated statistics' entails. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions both parameters ('src_id' and 'numero_telefone') but doesn't explain their meaning, format requirements, or how they interact. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already implied by the 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 'retorna estatisticas consolidadas de ligacoes para um numero por src_id' (returns consolidated call statistics for a number by src_id), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'consolidated statistics' specifically means and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_analytics_call_stats_by_file' or 'telefonica_analytics_calls_by_case'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to similar sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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