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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: scoping via x-temsor-pbx-key, derived indexing, idle $0, and 'own PBX/Asterisk stays on customer.' However, it never explicitly states whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any error/rate-limit behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 it is telegraphic and repeats 'Idle $0' twice. Phrases like 'Advanced: own PBX/Asterisk stays on customer' are cryptic and not fully explained, so not every sentence earns a clear place.

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 0-parameter status endpoint, the description gives a reasonable overview: endpoint, scoping, counts, and idle cost. But there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the response shape, possible error conditions, or the meaning of the 'Advanced' line, leaving an agent with incomplete expectations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema already documents 'No input — scoped by x-temsor-pbx-key when set,' and the description repeats and reinforces that. No parameter-level meaning is needed beyond what exists.

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 this is a control-plane status endpoint ('GET /v1/pbx/status') and specifies its content: promise/orchestra/search counts and idle $0. It also explicitly says 'No DID sales,' which narrows scope. However, it does not directly distinguish this from sibling status-type tools like pbx_whisper_status, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended usage is implied: check PBX control-plane status, counts, and idle cost. The 'No DID sales' statement provides a negative scope hint, and the x-temsor-pbx-key scoping note gives a prerequisite. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling PBX tools or when not to use it.

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