telefonica_analytics_distinct_numbers_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. While it indicates this is a counting/analytics operation (implied read-only), it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, whether there are rate limits, or how results are structured. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a tool with required parameters.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it's structurally efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter meanings and usage scenarios. It's borderline adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to properly invoke the tool.

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?

The description provides zero information about the two required parameters (src_id and identificador). With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to the counting operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with required parameters.

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: 'Conta numeros distintos de origem e destino por arquivo da Telefonica' (Counts distinct origin and destination numbers per Telefonica file). It specifies the verb ('conta' - counts), resource ('numeros distintos' - distinct numbers), and scope ('por arquivo da Telefonica' - per Telefonica file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'telefonica_analytics_distinct_numbers_by_case', which appears to serve a similar purpose but with a different grouping dimension.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other distinct number counting tools (like 'telefonica_analytics_distinct_numbers_by_case'), or any contextual limitations. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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.