telematica_analytics_connections_by_device

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 the tool returns aggregated connection data but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits or constraints. For an analytics tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.

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 complexity (analytics grouping with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema helps by documenting return values, but overall, the description doesn't provide enough context for confident tool invocation without additional inference.

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 the input schema provides no descriptions for the two required parameters ('source_id' and 'identificador_conta'). The description doesn't add any semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or how they affect the grouping. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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: 'Retorna total de conexoes da conta agrupado por dispositivo' (Returns total connections of the account grouped by device). It specifies the verb ('retorna'), resource ('conexoes'), and grouping criteria ('por dispositivo'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_connections' or 'telefonica_analytics_connections_by_number', which would be needed for 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. With many sibling analytics tools (e.g., 'telematica_analytics_by_account', 'telefonica_analytics_connections_by_number'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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