telematica_analytics_relevant_groups

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. The description mentions that it returns groups ranked by participant count, which is useful, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'relevance' entails beyond participant count. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence in Portuguese that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 that there's an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's main job is to explain purpose and usage. It does a decent job on purpose but lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With 3 parameters (source_id, identificador_conta, top_n) and no explanation in either the schema or description, this is inadequate.

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 os grupos mais relevantes da conta por quantidade de participantes' (Returns the most relevant groups of the account by number of participants). It specifies the verb (returns), resource (groups), and ranking criteria (by number of participants). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_groups' or 'telematica_analytics_recent_groups', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to groups (e.g., 'telematica_list_groups', 'telematica_analytics_recent_groups'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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