data_network_uldata_list

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. 'List' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not mention default limits, pagination behavior, time-filtering requirements, or what the returned records contain. For a tool with 11 parameters, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant words. It conveys the core operation immediately, though it is arguably thinner than ideal for a complex list tool.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, return shape, filtering options beyond the schema, or pagination semantics. The schema covers parameter meaning, but broader operational context is missing.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('network uplink data records'), which clearly separates this from count tools and downlink-data tools in the sibling set. However, it does not explicitly describe the scope of the list, such as whether it returns all records or supports filtering/pagination.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative list/count tools in the sibling set, such as data_network_dldata_list or data_network_uldata_count. The description implies a list operation but never states when this tool is the right choice or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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