telefonica_list_nat_ips

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 listing NATed IPs from a file, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this is paginated (though parameters suggest it), what the output format is, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource (NATed IPs from a Telefonica file), but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 parameters like 'src_id' and 'identificador' are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning to these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'src_id' or 'identificador' refer to, nor does it clarify the pagination parameters. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Lista IPs nateados de um arquivo da Telefonica' (Lists NATed IPs from a Telefonica file), which provides a clear verb ('Lista') and resource ('IPs nateados'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_ips' or 'telematica_list_ips', making it somewhat vague about its specific scope within the Telefonica context.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific file type or context, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_ips' for comparison, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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