JooVoice

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that it spends existing credits immediately, is preparation-only, and does NOT buy credits, change settings, approve the call, or exceed the connection limit. The idempotent-retry instruction adds useful operational context consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the core action and prerequisites before the scope exclusions, with no filler. The multi-clause negative list is dense but each clause earns its place by preventing misuse.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description needn't cover returns. It supplies the prerequisite state (owner consent), the side effect (credit spend), scope boundaries, and retry behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: ownerConfirmation is the owner's own accepted words and the remaining arguments come from the 'next' block in a reply. This sourcing detail is not obvious from the schema alone.

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+resource: accepting the shown price and spending the owner's credits. It explicitly signals what it is not ('doesn't approve the call'), which separates it from the sibling approve_call without needing the schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context ('after the owner says yes in this conversation') and retry guidance ('Retry a lost reply with identical arguments'). It does not name a competing alternative ('use X instead of Y'), so it stops short of full 5-level routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces idempotency with "Identical resends keep the result" and adds real behavioral context: routing of card numbers/codes/IDs into JooVoice, the "never invent names, numbers or references" restriction, and the outcome ("Returns the task at its next step"). It does not contradict any annotation.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense and grammatically under-specified ("ask the owner only what's unclear, theirs to decide, or speaks for them ... unless they said"), which forces re-reading. Several sentences earn their place; the phrasing could be tightened considerably.

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?

With a 100% documented schema and an output schema (plus a note that the task is returned at its next step), the description needn't explain return values. It covers the content policy and sensitive-data handling well, leaving only the sibling-routing story incomplete.

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. The description adds only "using the ids from the reply," which loosely gestures at taskId/callId/interactionId without adding format or shape detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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: "Answer JooVoice's current questions for one call," which tells an agent exactly what action is performed. It is distinguishable from task-management siblings like prepare_task or close_task. However, "JooVoice" is never defined, and it doesn't name which sibling feeds it the interactionId, so differentiation is partial rather than crisp.

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?

Gives substantive guidance on how to answer (send what you're confident of, ask the owner only what's unclear) and where sensitive values belong. But it offers no when-to-use context against alternatives (e.g., when to revise_task instead), so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, open-world and idempotent traits; the description adds operational behavior such as fresh ownerConfirmation for ordinary calls, direct_call's exemption, extraMinutes charging only if used, later-time scheduling, and 'Retry lost replies unchanged' aligning with idempotency. It does not spell out the practical consequences of a destructive real-world call, so 4 rather than 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description packs many operational rules into a short space with little filler. However, the telegraphic style and undefined shorthand ('using next', 'recap') reduce structural clarity.

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?

With annotations covering safety flags, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description supplies the needed usage, confirmation, scheduling, and retry context. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could clarify internal terms and destructive consequences.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents taskId, version, extraMinutes, notBeforeUtc, and ownerConfirmation in detail. The description adds only light reinforcement ('Set extraMinutes within the allowed limit', 'add notBeforeUtc' for later times) and a usage-level confirmation requirement. 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 opening 'Start the prepared call using next' names a specific verb and resource, and the text distinguishes it from direct_call, which reaches only the owner’s verified number without ownerConfirmation. However, it relies on internal shorthand ('next', 'recap') and does not distinguish against sibling call-handling tools such as start_welcome_call or retry_call.

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 gives concrete conditions: normally ask if ready, start now only with explicit instructions, an agreed routine or urgency, and ordinary calls require fresh ownerConfirmation. It also names direct_call as an alternative with different confirmation behavior. The guidance is dense and partly implicit, so it is not a perfect 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that 'each call still needs its own approval' and that it should be re-read after setup, but it doesn't elaborate on rate limits or failure modes beyond the annotation-provided facts.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Start here.' and limited to three tight sentences with no filler. The returned fields are enumerated efficiently. Minor room to trim, but every sentence carries signal.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: entry-point role, re-read timing, and the approval requirement for subsequent calls. Adequately complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 clear verb (returns) and enumerates the specific account resources: setup steps and link, credits, monthly limit and remaining, and the name/number used for calls. This makes the tool's output distinctive. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_settings or get_profile, but 'Start here' signals it as the entry-point status check.

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?

'Start here' and 'Read it again after the owner finishes setup' give clear timing guidance for when to call it. However, it never names or contrasts with alternatives such as read_settings or get_profile, so the agent must infer why to prefer this over them.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them while adding real value: it discloses that the operation is a request, that dialing is cancelled without refund during paid preparation, and that acceptance does not prove the call stopped, so later status must be read. It does not cover timing/latency or permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs (refund impact, verification requirement). No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the async/refund/verification context that the annotations cannot. The only gap is behavior outside the paid-preparation case, which is left implicit.

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 taskId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including where to obtain it). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Ask to close this task" names a specific verb and resource, and the framing as a request (rather than an immediate effect) meaningfully separates it from an immediate-termination sibling like end_call. However, it never names end_call or another sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary from the phrase "ask to close."

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?

Usage is implied through one concrete scenario — "During paid business preparation this cancels dialing while preparation continues, without a refund" — which tells the agent when the behavior matters. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for closing vs. ending a call.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: paid preparation only cancels dialing with no refund, and dispatched calls require reading later status because charges may still settle. The hedging verb 'Ask for this call to stop' usefully signals the stop is not necessarily immediate.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the two conditional caveats. No filler, though the paid-preparation and dispatched-call sentences are dense enough to merit a second read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description still covers the async nature of the stop, the refund exception, and the confirmation step, leaving little an agent would need before invoking it.

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%, with both callId and taskId fully documented (patterns, sources like prepare_task/list_tasks). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: stop a call, scoped to the owner's intent. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like retry_call or approve_call by the 'stop' action, though it never names an alternative for comparison.

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?

Gives a triggering condition ('when the owner wants it stopped') plus two situational branches: paid business preparation and dispatched calls. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g. close_task vs retry_call), which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally and 'Creates nothing' is largely redundant. The description does add genuine non-obvious behavior: the connectionId fallback for older connection-scoped creations, that creationReference works directly, and the no-match/do-not-recreate rule.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the lookup key and scenario before the caveats. 'Creates nothing' repeats the annotation and could be dropped, but the remaining content is dense and earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to carry purpose, trigger and safety caveats, and it does. The one gap is sibling disambiguation against get_task/list_tasks, which an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.

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 each parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal relational context ('also give that connectionId', 'a creationReference works directly') beyond what the per-parameter descriptions already say.

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+resource (find a task you created) and the lookup key (original operationId), plus the recency scenario (after a lost reply or reconnect). It is clear on its own, but never names the near-identical sibling get_task or list_tasks, so an agent must infer why this differs from simply fetching a task.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('after a lost reply or reconnect') and a follow-up rule ('No match is not permission to create a replacement without asking the owner'), which heads off the obvious wrong next action. It stops short of routing the agent among siblings (get_task, list_tasks, wait_for_task), so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: an accepted call may still be stopping and no refund is promised, which helps the agent set expectations for a destructive stop operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger, with no wasted words. Each sentence contributes distinct 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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations covering destructive/non-idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It could more explicitly state whether finishing is irreversible for the owner, but the key caveats are present.

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 all four parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces that retryVersion is the current one, but adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 action and scope: 'Stop further tries' on a call request after the owner asks to finish. That is clearly distinguishable from retry_call or approve_call, though it does not explicitly contrast with close sibling tools like end_call or close_task.

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 trigger condition — 'after the owner asks to finish' — is stated, which implies when to use it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to end_call or close_task.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the result is prose meant to be rephrased in the agent's own words, and replies identify the topic under a `guide` field, which implies a fallback workflow — useful behavioral signal.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the topic list, then the return contract. No filler; the topic list duplicates the enum but does so compactly.

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?

One required enum parameter, full schema coverage and an output schema mean return values and parameter details need no restating. The description covers what an agent needs to call it and phrase the answer, with only the omitted whats_new topic as a minor gap already handled by the enum.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum descriptions in the schema are richer than the prose (the description lists eight topics and omits whats_new, which only the enum documents). The description adds the mapping between replies and topic selection but no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Explains one part of JooVoice") and narrows it to an enumerated set of topics, so the agent knows it is a topic-scoped knowledge lookup. It implies the fallback role ("when the owner asks and a reply doesn't say") but never names the sibling it is not, e.g. answer_questions.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it to answer the owner when an existing reply doesn't cover the question. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives among the many siblings (answer_questions, check_account, read_settings), leaving the boundary implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('this connection is signed in to') and repeats that it is read-only and takes no arguments, but it does not add deeper behavioral detail such as auth requirements or rate limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the account context, enumerates the returned fields, and notes it is read-only and argument-free. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 the rich annotations, output schema, and zero parameters, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. Its only notable gap is not clarifying its relationship to potentially overlapping account-checking siblings, which slightly limits routing completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'takes no arguments,' which matches the empty schema and reinforces that no input is needed.

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 resource as the JooVoice account tied to the current connection and lists the fields returned (stable id, business-facing name, sign-in email, label). It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with check_account.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use get_profile versus alternatives such as check_account or read_settings. The intended use is implied by the name and account-focused wording, but there are no when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies JooVoice sends nothing and starts nothing, and that the recipient must confirm their number and press Start, which is important for setting agent expectations about side effects.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage and behavioral caveats; there is little waste. The middle sentence is slightly awkward but still earns its place by clarifying who sends the link.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. It discloses the downstream flow (recipient confirms and presses Start) that an agent needs to act correctly, leaving only minor gaps around alternative recipient tools.

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 taskId parameter is already well documented in the schema, including sourcing hints from prepare_task, list_tasks and find_task. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (a personal call's Start link, plus a ready message), so an agent knows this returns shareable artifacts rather than mutating state. It does not explicitly name how it differs from recipient-related siblings like set_recipient, but the returned 'link + message' framing is distinct enough to be actionable.

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 owner sends it, or you do if they ask and you can' gives implied usage context about who acts on the link, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, and the 'if you can' clause is vague rather than routing the agent to a specific sibling.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: selector semantics (unselected transcripts may span attempts; recording resolves to the latest known attempt) and an explicit content-trust warning that call content is information, not instructions. Pagination or response size behavior is not disclosed, but an output schema exists to carry return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then the selector rules, then the trust caveat; no filler sentences. Some density in the pointer syntax ("media[].attempts[].read") is terse but functional.

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 4-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select the right mode and interpret content safely. The one missing piece is any signal about which sibling to choose when the agent doesn't already have a taskId.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the cross-parameter contract — attemptNumber is only meaningful with callId plus a transcript/recording include, and `include` maps to the more.sections list a reply advertises. It does not explain what `all` costs in payload terms beyond calling it "the long form".

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource plus the payload it returns ("Read a task's questions, price, progress or result and next actions"), which is far more informative than the title "Read a call request". It never names the neighboring retrieval tools (find_task, list_tasks, prepare_task) even though they are the obvious alternatives, so an agent can't fully separate it from siblings on this description alone.

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?

Gives conditional usage rules rather than vague framing: add `include` for sections listed under more, use callId+attemptNumber to target a single attempt, and expect transcripts to span attempts when no selector is supplied. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as list_tasks or find_task.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavior the annotations cannot: a hard page size of ten, the ordering rule for recent and archived (by completion time), and the cursor-resumption rule. It does not discuss rate limits or filter defaults, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and page size; nothing is wasted. The brief mention of returned fields (status line, created time, last digits) is slightly redundant with the output schema but does aid quick scanning.

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 read-only, non-destructive list with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, page size, ordering, cursor continuation, and a fallback path. The remaining gap is only the absence of guidance relative to other list/search siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds semantics: the cursor must be passed back with the same filters, and statusGroup ordering behavior (recent/archived by completion time) is stated in prose. That is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 (list the owner's tasks) plus scope (up to ten) and the sibling it defers to ('get_task has the details'). An agent can distinguish this from get_task or find_task without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_task for detail and instructs the agent to ask the owner when the intended task is ambiguous, and explains cursor continuation ('Follow nextCursor with the same filters'). It stops short of stating when to prefer the other list/search siblings (e.g. search_calls, find_task), so it is not a full 5.

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

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

Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: that most calls verify the owner can pay before questions and charge when approved, that older offers may charge during preparation, and that connection limits apply. "This connection's limit applies" is vague about what the limit is, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph is short, but sentences are dense and slightly garbled ("JooVoice's questions", "This connection's limit applies") without explaining what the limit is. Some clauses, particularly the charging aside, are compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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 mutation tool with billing implications, the description covers the essential non-schema facts (delegated business lookup, voice selection, retry/idempotency, approval gate) and an output schema exists so returns needn't be described. Missing is any statement of preconditions such as account/credit state.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each field. The description still adds value by explaining that destinations [] delegates business lookup, that JooVoice chooses language/accent/voice so the agent needn't supply them, and that retries reuse the same operationId with identical input.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource: "Start one call request," and clarifies the destinations [] case where JooVoice finds the business. It hints at the approval flow ("charge when approved") but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like approve_call or revise_task in the description body.

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?

"Include what the owner told you in request and brief" and the retry-on-lost-reply rule give some operational guidance, and the charging note implies the approval step follows. But the description never states when to use this vs. revise_task, approve_call, or retry_call, leaving the lifecycle routing to the schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds scope context about which settings are readable and where out-of-scope settings are managed, which is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped by what is and is not accessible. Slight redundancy between 'settings that can be changed from here' and 'Returns their current values,' but overall tight and free of padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope and exclusions adequately for a zero-parameter read tool. Naming the write counterpart would make it fully complete, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose meaning the description could or should clarify, and the schema trivially covers the empty object.

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 (Read) and resource (owner's JooVoice settings) and scopes which settings are accessible here. It implies a write counterpart ('settings that can be changed from here') without explicitly naming update_settings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives useful exclusions: it names what can be read here (the name businesses hear on calls) and directs payment, sign-in, and contact details to JooVoice instead. This is clear when-not-here guidance, though it never names the sibling tool (update_settings) for modifying these values.

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

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 description's job is to add context, and it does: it states the tool does NOT accept the task or approve calling, and that an already-paid task is unchanged. That clarifies the side-effect boundary beyond the hint flags; it stops short of describing what actually changes on an unpaid task's stored price.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('rarely needed') is front-loaded. The semicolon-joined final clause is slightly dense but still readable.

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?

With an output schema present and safety hints supplied by annotations, the description covers routing and the key side-effect boundary. Nothing critical is missing, though a brief note on what a refresh actually alters on an unpaid task would close the last gap.

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 taskId parameter is fully documented in-schema, including where to obtain it (prepare_task, list_tasks, find_task). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 name, title and the phrase 'renew an expired price' make the resource and effect clear, and the description explicitly contrasts it with accept_credits and approve_call. It never states in one clean sentence 'this tool refreshes an expired price', relying on the name and the sibling contrast to convey it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Rarely needed: accept_credits and approve_call renew an expired price by themselves' gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance and names the two alternatives that supersede it. An agent can immediately decide whether to route elsewhere rather than calling this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior: a fresh owner confirmation is mandatory, prior consent can never be reused, and a new base payment is only charged when 'next' lists it and the owner approves. That is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the annotation flags. It still doesn't state reversibility or what a failed retry leaves behind.

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 text is dense and front-loads the retry purpose, but the opening clause is malformed and the final sentence about startWindow/choices.allowed refers to output fields in the middle of call-time guidance, which reads as a non sequitur. Several clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with an output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisites: fresh owner consent, no consent reuse, conditional payment, and reading prior outcome. The main gap is routing — with 27 siblings it never says which tool to use when a retry is not appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema baseline applies, but the description still adds real meaning: retryVersion must come from next[].arguments, and maximumBaseMicrocredits is passed only when a new base payment is listed and after owner approval. That conditional logic is not in the schema description and prevents a costly misuse. notBeforeUtc is left unexplained in the description.

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 verb+resource is present (retry a call attempt) and the mention of retryVersion from 'next' plus saved terms narrows the operation. However, the phrasing 'Retry after a fresh owner yes' is grammatically broken and never cleanly names the object being retried; the agent has to infer that this re-attempts a call in a task. No sibling is named as an alternative, so differentiation depends on reading the schema.

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 gives real conditional rules: a new base payment is required only when 'next' explicitly lists one, consent must never be reused, and the saved outcome should be read before calling. These imply when to call, but it never states when *not* to retry or which sibling to use instead (e.g. approve_call, finish_call, start_welcome_call) among 27 peers.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: revising can settle earlier preparation and start new preparation, may incur charges within saved limits, may be refused for changed or approved tasks, and returns the task at its new step. The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation risk, so this is useful supplemental context rather than a contradiction.

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 three compact sentences, front-loads the tool’s purpose, then adds behavioral caveats and return behavior. It is appropriately sized, with only minor vagueness around charging and saved limits.

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 the rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main operational context an agent needs: use the latest version, changing can trigger new preparation and charges, edits may be refused, and it returns the task at its new step. It could be stronger with explicit sibling routing, but it is otherwise complete.

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 documents all parameters in detail. The description reinforces that the request/recipient are being changed and that the version comes from the latest reply, but it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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-resource pair: change a task’s request or recipient. It also clarifies that the edit uses the task’s latest reply version, which distinguishes it from creating a new task, though it does not explicitly name prepare_task or other siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the prerequisite to use the version from the latest reply and by the warning that changed or approved tasks may refuse the edit. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of prepare_task, approve_call, or other task tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful specifics: returns at most 20 results as links. It stops there, not covering ordering, matching semantics, or empty-result behavior beyond the schema hint.

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 compact sentences that front-load purpose and result shape with no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter lookup 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?

For a one-parameter read-only search with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, result count and form. Ordering/relevance behavior is unspecified but non-blocking given the richness of structured fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single query parameter including the empty-lists-recent behavior and length cap. The description adds the useful note that matching is by place or request, but does not go beyond the structured data in syntax or format.

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 (Find) and resource (calls) scoped to the owner, plus a stated purpose (mentioning in a message). Distinguishes scope via 'owner's calls', though none of the siblings are search tools so differentiation is less critical. Clear but not maximally precise.

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?

Conveys context ('for mentioning one in a message') which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives. The schema reveals empty query lists recent calls, but the description itself offers only implied usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety bar is partly met; the description adds real value by clarifying that the move applies to existing bookings including an unsent retry, and that no further decision is needed afterward. The retry guidance for a lost reply and the post-refusal read-the-task instruction are behaviors no annotation conveys. It does not describe what state is destroyed or confirm the revision conflict failure mode in detail, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but the middle sentences are dense and jargon-heavy ('Listed hours and contactAdvice are guidance under advisory timing'), referencing domain concepts an agent must already know. Several clauses are load-bearing, but the phrasing could be tightened considerably.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the risk profile. The description fills the remaining gap that matters most for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation: retry semantics on a lost reply and the required follow-up after a refusal. It leaves the ownership/permission path only implicitly covered, so 4.

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 all five parameters including when, callId, expectedRevision and ownerConfirmation are already documented. The description only restates the startWindow-vs-allowed selection that the 'when' schema describes, adding no new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Move a call that is already booked, or call now.' It also scopes the operation to an existing booking rather than creating one, which separates it from prepare_task/approve_call style siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear triggering conditions ('on the owner's request or under Let the agent decide') and selection logic between nextCall.startWindow and nextCall.allowed. It also prescribes recovery behavior ('after refusal read the task; after a lost reply repeat identical arguments'). No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so 4 rather than 5.

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

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the suppression is scoped to this connection, the agent still sees unread updates itself, and email consent is untouched. It doesn't address why idempotentHint is false, given that re-applying 'off' looks repeatable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the condition, and each carries distinct information: the action, the agent's remaining visibility, and the email-consent exclusion. No filler.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so the description needn't explain return values or safety. It supplies the key scope and side-effect context; the only gap is that reversing the preference and the per-connection vs. per-owner lifetime are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required 'owner' parameter has no schema description, but the enum has only one value ('off') and the description effectively explains what that value does. It never references the parameter name or its allowed value explicitly, so it compensates only partially.

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 concrete effect: stop sharing JooVoice updates with the owner for this connection, while the agent retains its own read access. That distinguishes it from email-consent settings, though it never names the sibling tool (e.g. update_settings/read_settings) that would handle those other preferences.

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 trigger is explicit: 'When the owner doesn't want JooVoice updates.' It also carves out a when-not case ('Does not change email consent'), which signals a different tool handles that, but it doesn't name that alternative or mention how to reverse the setting.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: it does not approve the call, it preserves the original request, and it tells the agent to reuse the same version and number on retry. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though no auth/permission or state-effect detail is given.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and followed by the two caveats that matter (no approval, retry semantics). The first sentence is slightly indirect but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the schema and retry note, the description gives an agent enough to invoke this correctly; only permission/prerequisite context is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents taskId, version, and destination fully. The description only echoes the country-code expectation for destination and the version-reuse rule, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 title plus description make the resource clear (the destination number on a call task), and the phrase "doesn't approve calling" distinguishes it from the approve_call sibling. However, the description itself never states the verb+resource plainly (e.g. "sets the call destination"), relying on the title to carry the action.

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 implies the trigger condition (the owner answered "Who should we call?" with a number) and gives retry guidance ("Retry a lost reply with the same version and number"), which is genuinely useful. But it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not, so the routing is only implied.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the action is a reversible deferral, not a permanent cancellation, and it must be grounded in the owner's own words. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, then the trigger, then the parameter guidance, then the reversibility note. No filler; 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers when to call, how to supply the confirmation, and that the skip is reversible, leaving only minor gaps around error/retry behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that ownerConfirmation should be 'their words,' but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema itself. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Skip the owner's welcome call') and scopes it ('for now'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like start_welcome_call and end_call. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use it 'when setup offers it and they say they'd rather not take it.' It also clarifies the deferral nature ('They can still take it later from their account'), but it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for the opposite intent (e.g. accepting the call).

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

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that it initiates a real sponsored call to the owner’s verified number and requires an explicit readiness confirmation, though it does not cover failure behavior or what happens if the owner declines.

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 three tight sentences, front-loading what the tool does and then immediately covering gating, confirmation, and locale selection. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 real-world call-starting mutation, the description covers the key prerequisites and confirmation flow, and an output schema exists to explain return values. It is slightly incomplete about what to do if the owner is not ready or declines, but the core invocation context is present.

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 defines all four parameters, including operationId retry semantics and catalogueRevision. The description reinforces ownerConfirmation and locale usage, but adds limited meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 and resource: start the owner’s welcome call. It also distinguishes the action as a short sponsored call to the owner’s verified number that is part of setup, which differentiates it from siblings such as skip_welcome_call and approve_call.

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 gives explicit preconditions: only when check_account offers the call and only after the owner says they are ready. It also tells the agent to pass the owner’s words as ownerConfirmation and to use the offered locale from setup.welcomeLanguage, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, and the description usefully clarifies the real effect: the assistant is disconnected from the current account, no data in it changes, and the owner must sign in again. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss failure cases or reversibility in detail.

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 short, front-loaded with the only-use condition, and then gives the required steps and consequence in sequence. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 one-parameter, destructive account-switching tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key trigger, prerequisite confirmation, immediate effect, and next step. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains that ownerConfirmation contains the owner's own words. The description adds process meaning by requiring the assistant to confirm the current account and obtain the owner's yes before passing those words.

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 makes the account-switch purpose clear through the trigger condition and the described effect: disconnecting from the current JooVoice account and signing in again with a different one. It is specific but relies partly on the title rather than opening with a direct verb-and-resource statement.

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 states an explicit precondition ('Only when the owner wants you on a different JooVoice account') and adds a required confirmation workflow, including checking the current account with get_profile and obtaining the owner's yes. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the relevant sibling tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds useful partial-update semantics ("only what changes") but does not explain the destructive flag, auth requirements, or reversibility.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, a constraint, and parameter guidance with little waste. The clause structure around "with only what changes under set" is slightly dense but still readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter partial-update tool the description covers the parameter's meaning and the update semantics adequately, though it could note reversibility.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real intent for callingName - it is how businesses hear the owner's name on later calls - and instructs to "use their exact words," which the schema's title/description do not convey.

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 (Change) and resource (the owner's settings), making it clearly distinct from the sibling read_settings. It stops short of explicitly naming the read counterpart or scoping which settings are addressable.

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?

Gives a trigger condition ("when they ask") and a how-to ("with only what changes under set"), so usage is implied rather than spelled out. It names no alternative tool and gives 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 25-second blocking/long-poll wait and the shape of the outcome (either human-relayable text like “Your number’s verified.” or a “no change yet” result). It does not cover error or stale-version handling.

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 tight sentences with the wait behavior and duration front-loaded, followed by the input source and the return contract. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs: how to obtain the version, the time bound, and what comes back (with an output schema also present). It omits what happens on an invalid/stale version or repeated no-change results, which for a polling tool would be useful.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by stating the version can come from check_account or from the last wait, not just 'the last reply', which clarifies the token's lifecycle.

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 (wait), resource (setup), and a bounded scope (up to 25 seconds while the owner works through setup), which an agent can distinguish from wait_for_task or check_account. It also names the chaining source (setup.version from check_account) so the tool's role in the flow is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it: after check_account or after a previous wait, reusing the returned version token. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., versus wait_for_task or polling check_account directly), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 25-second timeout, the 'no change yet' sentinel return, and the reassurance that saved work continues regardless of outcome.

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?

Three short sentences with the timeout front-loaded, so the most decision-relevant constraint appears first. No wasted clauses, though the parenthetical reference to get_task is slightly compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out in detail, and the description still covers timing, the change/no-change outcomes, and side-effect behavior. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; the only gap is the missing explicit when-to-use guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the version semantics ('using the version from its last reply'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (wait for a task), names the exact bound (up to 25 seconds), and explains what is returned. It also references get_task explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart from the polling/read siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: you supply the version from the last reply and wait for a change, which suggests a long-poll pattern rather than repeated get_task calls. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_task or when not to use it, so the routing is left to inference.

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