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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: 'without dialing' signals a side-effect-free read, and it enumerates what is inspected (provider offering, health, test numbers). It omits auth/permission requirements and rate/limit behavior, 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the alternative-tool routing; 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?

Adequate for a two-param read tool with no output schema: it conveys the read-only nature and the inspected signals. The gap is that neither parameter is explained anywhere, and there is no output schema to fall back on for return-shape clarity.

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% for both required params (id, workspaceId). The description only alludes to a line via 'a line's readiness' and the mentions of lineId belong to calls.create, not to this tool's own id/workspaceId arguments, so the parameters remain undocumented.

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 ('Check a line's readiness') plus the concrete facets evaluated (provider offered, health, test numbers), and distinguishes itself from calls_create as the non-dialing variant.

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 the agent: use this for a dry readiness check, and use calls.create with lineId when an actual test call is needed. Clear alternative and condition, though it doesn't spell out exclusions or prerequisites like required line state.

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