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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the GET endpoint, scoping via 'x-temsor-pbx-key,' the 'No live PSTN' constraint, and the fact that it returns 'transfer/handoff path for orchestration.' It stops short of explicitly stating read-only/no side effects, but the GET method and listing verb strongly imply it.

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 main purpose, but 'Idle $0' appears twice, which is redundant. The three sentences are otherwise efficient, yet the repetition and slightly scattered placement of context ('hotel / MSP sales demo' vs endpoint info) make the structure less polished than it could be.

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 low complexity (one optional enum parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough to call it correctly: the endpoint, query parameter, scoping header, and the type of data returned. It does not enumerate response fields, but for a simple listing endpoint this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single 'status' parameter already has a precise enum, default, and explanation. The description's mention of 'status=open' and 'open/unclosed promises' mostly restates the schema, adding little semantic value beyond what the structured definition already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List open/broken call promises for agent handoff tracking.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like pbx_promises_close, pbx_promises_reopen, and pbx_promises_act, all of which imply actions rather than reads.

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 states the intended use case ('agent handoff tracking — hotel / MSP sales demo') and indicates that status=open is the relevant filter for orchestration. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer close/reopen/export, but the read-only listing intent is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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