data_application_uldata_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, potential for unbounded results with limit=0, or filtering semantics. Schema covers parameter defaults, but behavioral context beyond that is absent.

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?

A single five-word sentence with no wasted text and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though at the cost of not addressing sibling differentiation or usage context.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only the basic purpose. Missing are the distinction from network-level and downlink siblings, what an uplink data record contains, and when to prefer count/list variants. The agent must rely on the schema and name alone.

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 baseline is 3. Each of the 11 parameters has a meaningful schema description including defaults (limit 100, offset 0), units (ms since epoch), and a dependency (tfield required with tstart/tend). The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given coverage.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('application uplink data records'), which is grammatically clear and matches the tool name. It implicitly differentiates from application downlink (dldata) and network-level siblings via 'application' and 'uplink', though it does not name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (data_application_dldata_list, data_network_uldata_list, data_application_uldata_count). No mention of when to apply time filters, sort keys, or the unit requirement. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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