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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It covers key aspects: optional HMAC authentication with detailed signature format, idle cost of $0, body size limit (256 KiB → 429), and the heuristic (no LLM) for promise extraction. It also notes that demo stores events in memory/file. This is comprehensive for a tool with no annotations, though it could mention persistence guarantees for production.

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 a single dense paragraph with multiple sentences, but each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, authentication, event handling, cost, limits, and advanced use. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. Slightly long but each part is relevant; no fluff detected. The use of 'Advanced:' clearly separates optional context.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, batch events, multiple behaviors), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, authentication, limits, and processing logic. No output schema means the description should hint at return values, but it doesn't, which is a minor gap. However, for a tool with no annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the input schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context that the 'events' parameter contains utterance/text fields that trigger heuristic extraction, which goes slightly beyond the schema's 'trigger heuristic promise extract' but not significantly. For pbx_id, the description doesn't add much beyond its name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds marginal value.

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 clearly states the tool ingests call-ops events to create promises and transfer crumbs, with a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('call-ops events'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pbx_ingest_transcript and pbx_calls by focusing on raw event batches for search/orchestration. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from pbx_ingest_transcript, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

The description provides implicit usage context: it's for ingesting events from a PBX, especially for building promise docs and transfer crumbs. It mentions advanced use case (ARI/Stasis batch) for customers running their own PBX, which guides when to use. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a clear use case.

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