telematica_analytics_verify_contacts

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 mentions verification and symmetry checking, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does operationally—such as whether it performs read-only checks, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'simetria' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, concise sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Verifica'), and there is no wasted verbiage. However, it could be more structured by clarifying terms like 'simetria'.

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 is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's main gaps are in parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. The description is minimally adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, leaving key operational details unclear.

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 three parameters (source_id, identificador_conta, numeros) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their formats, or how they relate to the verification process. This leaves all parameters undocumented.

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's purpose as verifying if provided numbers are account contacts and checking for symmetry, which is clear but somewhat vague. It uses specific verbs ('verifica') but doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_contacts' or 'telematica_analytics_contacts_by_city', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks precision about what 'simetria' (symmetry) means in this context.

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 tools in the 'telematica' and related categories (e.g., 'telematica_list_contacts', 'telematica_analytics_contacts_by_city'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without 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.