telefonica_list_portability_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Lista' (List), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (hinted by 'pagina' and 'itens_por_pagina' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, but it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 (2 required) with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or behavioral details, though the output schema may cover return values. For a list tool with pagination, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning to parameters like 'src_id', 'identificador', 'pagina', or 'itens_por_pagina'. It fails to explain what these inputs represent (e.g., file identifier, page number), leaving parameters undocumented and unclear.

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 'Lista eventos de portabilidade de um arquivo da Telefonica' which translates to 'List portability events of a Telefonica file.' This provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('portability events'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_analytics_portability_by_number' or specify what 'portability events' entail (e.g., phone number transfers). It's adequate but vague on scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific file type), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'telefonica_analytics_portability_by_number' or 'telefonica_list_files.' This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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