telefonica_analytics_phones_by_antenna

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 states this is a listing operation ('Lista'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least implies a non-destructive read operation.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted wording or unnecessary elaboration—it directly states what the tool does without redundancy. This is appropriately concise for a listing tool.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'antenna' and 'periodo opcional', which loosely map to 'cgi_erb' (antenna identifier) and the date parameters ('data_inicio', 'data_fim'), but doesn't explain 'src_id' or provide any format details (e.g., date format, antenna ID syntax). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's titles, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 telefones conectados a uma antena da Telefonica em um periodo opcional' (Lists phones connected to a Telefonica antenna during an optional period). It specifies the verb ('Lista'), resource ('telefones conectados a uma antena'), and scope ('periodo opcional'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_connections' 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or how it differs from related sibling tools (e.g., 'telefonica_list_connections' or 'telefonica_analytics_connections_by_number'). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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