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

Despite having no annotations, the description provides significant behavioral disclosure: it explains that mode=ready only indicates the env var is set, that live RTP is always false on forge, and that there is no production claim for ≤400ms latency. This is beyond what structured data would provide and gives honest expectations to the 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 quite long and includes many caveats (e.g., 'No ≤400ms production claim', 'No DID sales') that may be tangential to the tool's core function. It is not front-loaded with a clear summary; the first line mentions capability and mode, but the rest is a list of clarifications. Some sentences could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

The description covers key aspects: endpoint, meaning of mode, and lab mode. However, it lacks detail on the response structure (e.g., fields like live_rtp, listening) and does not explain what the agent should do with the status or how to interpret different values beyond mode. Given zero parameters and no output schema, more context on the returned data would be helpful.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description says 'No input — TEMSOR_RTP_* from process env.' The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here because the description correctly notes that inputs come from environment variables, not schema parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: to report PBX whisper RTP status via GET /v1/pbx/whisper/status, and clarifies what 'mode=ready' means. However, it is not immediately clear to an agent that this is a read-only status check; the description is dense and includes many caveats that may confuse rather than clarify. It does distinguish itself from siblings by focusing on RTP status, but it does not explicitly say 'use this to check...'.

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 usage: it is for checking the status of RTP via the endpoint, and it mentions a lab mode (TEMSOR_RTP_LAB=1) that adds lab_latency_ms. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbx_status or pbx_whisper_suggest, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions for 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.