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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: dial plan ids are 'never secrets' and next_step is 'the one line to relay to the owner.' No contradiction with annotations; adds behavioral nuance beyond the structured hints.

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 efficient sentences. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then enumerates returned fields, then gives usage contexts. No padding or repetition; every clause contributes.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on purpose and use cases. For a single-parameter read-only tool with clear annotations, nothing essential is missing; it even clarifies the 'never secrets' detail.

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 covers business_id at 100% with a clear description. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate. 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: read the phone system status. Lists exact contents (Kai's extension, ring group, dial plan ids, phone-system line, next_step) which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_activation_status or get_phone_flow. Clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 states when to use it: to confirm a set_up_phone_system run or before adding team phones. Provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is typical for a read-only status tool.

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