telematica_analytics_contacts_by_city

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 a distribution, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the output format. With an output schema present, some behavioral aspects might be covered there, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema helps cover return values, but the description doesn't fully address the gaps in parameter documentation and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 description mentions 'para a conta' (for the account), which loosely relates to the 'identificador_conta' parameter, but it doesn't explain the 'source_id' parameter or provide any details on parameter usage, formats, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage and two required parameters, the description 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 distribuicao de contatos por municipio para a conta' (Returns distribution of contacts by municipality for the account). It specifies the verb ('retorna'), resource ('contatos'), and scope ('por municipio para a conta'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_contacts' or 'telematica_analytics_by_account', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'telematica_list_contacts' or 'telematica_analytics_by_account'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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