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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scoping header, the found=false behavior for missing IDs, and mentions cost/idle aspects, but does not explain side effects, detailed authentication requirements, or error behavior beyond missing identities.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The added notes about scoping and found=false are relevant, though phrases like 'Idle $0' and 'No DID sales' are somewhat cryptic but do not bloat the text.

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 get operation, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the parameter, and the missing-id behavior. However, there is no output schema and no description of returned fields, pagination, or error conditions other than found=false, leaving some context absent.

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 only parameter, id, is well described in both the schema and the description with format examples (per_001 or ext_101). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds useful examples and reinforces the dual ID types.

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 gets one light-CRM identity by ID, with concrete examples of valid IDs (per_001, ext_101) and an explicit endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbx_persons (likely listing) and pbx_calls_get.

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 implies single-identity retrieval via the endpoint and example, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over pbx_persons or pbx_search. It provides some behavioral conditions (found=false if missing) and scoping info, but lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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