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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write that won't destroy data. The description adds meaningful context by pointing to the dry-run verification tool, but says nothing about permissions, side effects of provisioning a server, or failure modes — gaps that matter for a multi-param mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is stated first with the verification hint following. Every clause carries 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?

For a 7-parameter, non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, the description does far too little — it never explains required configuration, what a created server looks like, or how failures surface. The only compensating element is the dry-run pointer, which is not enough.

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 only 14%: of seven parameters, only organization_id carries a description, and the description text explains none of them. Critical fields like server_address (required), port, transport, and allowed_sip_ips are left entirely for the agent to infer, which is a real gap for a provisioning tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a customer phone server') with a scoping qualifier ('for self-hosted media/calling') that tells the agent this provisions infrastructure, not a call or campaign. It also names the related sibling test_phone_server, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the many other create_* tools beyond the resource noun.

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 clause 'test_phone_server dry-run verifies it' implies a recommended workflow of validating before creating, which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. required project or org context), and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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