get_phone_connection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns against fabricating data and instructs to report errors, which is a critical behavioral disclosure. It also mentions that the tool can return 'live line data from the Imowi mobile platform', implying potential real-time data freshness. However, it does not describe limits, error conditions, or performance implications beyond the warning.

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 two sentences with minimal filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the second contains an important safety warning. The warning is front-loaded enough, though the phrase '(includes SSMovil mobile)' could be integrated more cleanly.

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 2 parameters, 1 enum, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the important 'do not fabricate' rule, and the tool's scope across telephony and Imowi. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on selecting between detail and imowi modes beyond the enum description, but the context is sufficient for a broad agent.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter adequately. The description adds context about 'live line data from Imowi' that enriches the include enum, but does not explain default behaviors beyond what the enum description already covers. Thus, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving detailed information about a phone/telephony connection and mentions the SSMovil mobile and Imowi platforms. It distinguishes from list_phone_connections (listing vs. getting one) and provides domain-specific context, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage when specific phone connection details are needed, especially from the Imowi platform fruity live data. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_subscription or get_tv_connection, but the 'Get detailed information' phrase provides clear context and the include enum offers usage choices.

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