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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing that password values are never returned and that boolean <field>_set fields indicate whether secrets are configured.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then enumerates returned fields that matter because no output schema exists. It uses two sentences with no filler and places the password-disclosure note at the end where it is easy to find.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it lists the main fields plus type-specific configuration and clarifies password handling. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the definition is complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats that the id is the uuid returned by list_trunks, but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: returning full details of a single Voice IN Trunk by id. It also distinguishes itself from the list operation by noting the id is the uuid returned by list_trunks.

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?

It clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent already has a trunk id and needs full details. It references list_trunks as the source of that id, but stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or how it differs from other get_* siblings.

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