telematica_list_emails

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 states this is a listing operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though schema shows pagination parameters), or what the output contains. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

The description states the basic purpose but lacks crucial context. With no annotations, 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema (which helps), it should explain parameter meanings and behavioral constraints. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that likely returns structured email data from specific records.

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 parameter titles provide minimal context. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their purposes. It doesn't explain what 'registro_ids' represents, how pagination works, or the relationship between parameters. With 3 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Lista emails') and target resource ('de registros da Telematica'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_contacts' or 'telematica_list_records' beyond mentioning emails specifically, which keeps it from 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 sibling tools like 'telematica_list_contacts' and 'telematica_list_records' available, there's no indication of when email listing is appropriate versus other listing operations, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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