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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), filter and format usage, response fields (closed_at, close_note, path crumbs), scoping via an API key header, and even idle cost. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but it offers good transparency for a simple export operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose first and then providing endpoint and behavioral details. It avoids fluff and quickly conveys the essential call. Minor ambiguity like 'Idle $0' and 'open/broken' could be tighter, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides meaningful response field and scoping details that go beyond the bare schema. However, it misses pagination, error handling, and the full status value set is only implied; the term 'open/broken' and the configuration key are under-specified. This is adequate but has notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds an example endpoint and response fields, but it actually narrows the status enum to open|closed and does not add strong semantic meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not compensate with extra parameter context that would exceed the baseline.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Export open/broken promises') and includes endpoint details. However, the phrase 'open/broken' is ambiguous relative to the schema's broader status enum (open, kept, broken, unknown, all, closed), and it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling pbx_promises list tool, leaving some room for confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this export tool versus the pbx_promises or pbx_promises_close/reopen siblings. It covers the how-to via endpoint example but does not state when this tool is preferable or when alternatives are appropriate. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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