telefonica_analytics_calls_by_file

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 mentions pagination and optional ordering, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't describe what 'ligacoes' (calls) includes, the response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that communicates the core functionality and key features (pagination, ordering) without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and mentions pagination/ordering, but doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a 7-parameter tool with no structured documentation beyond titles, the description should provide more semantic guidance to be truly complete.

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 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions pagination and ordering generally, without explaining any specific parameters like 'src_id', 'identificador', or 'numero_telefone'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving the agent with minimal guidance on what each parameter means.

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 action ('Lista ligacoes' - List calls) and specifies the resource scope ('de um numero por arquivo' - from a number by file). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'telefonica_analytics_calls_by_case' by specifying 'por arquivo' (by file) rather than 'por caso' (by case). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file-based call tools like 'telefonica_analytics_call_stats_by_file'.

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 when to choose this over 'telefonica_analytics_calls_by_case' or 'telefonica_analytics_call_stats_by_file', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for its use. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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