telematica_analytics_by_account

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 it returns metrics but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or what format/size the output might have. 'Retorna' suggests a query operation, but details are missing.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the key action and parameters, with no wasted words, though it could be more structured with additional context.

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 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for an analytics 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by naming the parameters ('source_id' and 'identificador_conta') and implying they filter metrics by account, but it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or examples. Baseline is 3 as it compensates slightly 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 action ('Retorna' - returns) and resource ('metricas analiticas da Telematica'), specifying it's by account. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'telematica_analytics_by_source' by indicating account-level focus, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telematica_analytics_by_source' or other analytics tools. The description implies usage for account-specific metrics but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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