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

The annotations already declare it read-only. The description adds plan and permission context: it is available to the receptionist owner on every plan, while editing requires PRO or higher. It also describes the return contents, which makes up for the missing output schema, though it says nothing about pagination or size.

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 front-loaded sentences, and each one carries distinct value: purpose, usage, and permissions.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers return contents, workflow role and plan constraints. That is enough to use it correctly even without an output schema.

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 schema fully documents the single agentId parameter. The description adds only the 'one receptionist' framing and does not say where to get the ID, such as from listAgents.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource: list one receptionist's Skills / Call Scenarios. It also lists the returned fields (IDs, stable keys, selectors, full guides, enabled state, order), which sets it apart from the call_scenarios_create/update/delete/reorder 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?

"Use before proposing any scenario change" gives a clear workflow placement relative to the mutation siblings. It does not say when this tool is the wrong choice, for example versus loadSkill or getAgent.

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