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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world action. The description adds important behavior beyond that: the effect is one-time only, nothing is retained, and the next call will be screened again.

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 short sentences, front-loads the immediate effect, then clarifies persistence and the alternative. Every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter action with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description covers the action, its one-time nature, the caller's current state, and the contrasting persistent tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `secret` and `address` are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about parameter formats or values beyond what the schema 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 states a specific action: letting a currently screened caller through for this one call so their call rings straight to the user. It also clearly distinguishes this one-call behavior from the sibling `allow`, which is described as the persistent alternative.

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 an explicit use condition, the caller is holding at the door now, and explicitly routes persistent exceptions to `allow` only after a good call. The when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance is concrete.

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