telematica_analytics_by_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, not how it behaves - no information about permissions required, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with analytics functionality, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core function. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, while concise, it's under-specified rather than optimally informative, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the clean structure.

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 an output schema (which should document return values) and only one parameter, the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for an analytics tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about what 'analytical metrics' encompasses and how the source_id parameter works to be truly complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only a parameter name 'source_id' with no explanation. The description mentions 'by source_id' but adds no semantic meaning - it doesn't explain what a source_id represents, valid formats, examples, or how it relates to the analytics being returned. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 'returns analytical metrics from Telematica by source_id', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what specific metrics are returned and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_analytics_by_account' or 'telematica_analytics_connections_by_device' that also return Telematica analytics but with different parameters or scopes.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to sibling tools that might serve similar purposes with different parameters (e.g., 'telematica_analytics_by_account'). The agent must infer usage from the parameter name alone.

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