telefonica_analytics_calls_by_case

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. It mentions pagination and ordering are optional, which is useful, but doesn't describe other important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this 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 - a single sentence in Portuguese that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key optional features. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values in the description), but with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and mentions pagination/ordering, but doesn't provide enough context about parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from similar tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear 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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'src_id' and 'numero_telefone' (phone number) as required, and hints at pagination and ordering parameters, but doesn't explain what 'src_id' represents, what format the phone number should be in, what fields can be used for ordering, or what the ordering options are. It adds minimal value beyond what's implied by 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lista ligacoes de um numero por src_id' (Lists calls of a number by src_id). It specifies the verb ('lista' - list) and resource ('ligacoes' - calls), and mentions optional pagination and ordering. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'telefonica_analytics_calls_by_file' or 'telefonica_analytics_connections_by_number', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for telefonica analytics (e.g., calls_by_file, call_stats_by_case, connections_by_number), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain the specific use case for this tool. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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