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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: 'Idle $0, no LLM' (cost/latency profile), 'tenant-scoped aliases' (scoping), and legacy key acceptance. It stops short of stating read-only nature, response shape, or pagination for a read endpoint.

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 definition is short but densely packed with opaque shorthand ('E4', 'example packs thicken per pilot', 'No invented premiums'). It is not front-loaded around the primary purpose — the jargon-heavy first sentence precedes the actual endpoint semantics, so the size is wasted rather than earned.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, domain values, cost model, and the write path. Key gaps remain: no return-format hint and no clear statement that this is a safe read, which matters given zero annotation coverage.

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 goes beyond the schema by labeling the alternate enum values (otel, santral_firmasi, sigorta, etc.) as legacy aliases 'still accepted' — a meaning the schema enum alone does not express. This adds genuine semantic value for the single 'domain' parameter.

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 conveys that this reads a managed domain dictionary whose synonyms boost search and Fact extraction, and it names the write sibling (POST /v1/pbx/dictionary/add). However the opening is wrapped in unexplained jargon ('E4', 'example packs thicken per pilot', 'No invented premiums', 'match crumbs') that obscures the core verb+resource, so an agent must work to extract the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: synonyms 'feed archive search (match crumbs) and transcript Fact extraction,' and the write path is routed to the sibling pbx_dictionary_add. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or conditions that should select this over other pbx_* tools.

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