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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the move is asynchronous ('not instant') and it explicitly 'Does not send the request to the carrier,' which tells the agent the request is staged rather than dispatched. It stops short of 5 by not stating what a repeat call does or what permissions are required.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the action and reserve the last two for important behavioral caveats. The phrase 'using the details supplied here' is mild filler, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

With no output schema, five undocumented parameters, and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, the description leaves key gaps: whether a port identifier is returned, how to track progress (get_port), and which of the five fields are required when zero are marked required.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description contributes nothing beyond 'using the details supplied here.' It does not clarify the ambiguous coexistence of 'number' and 'numbers,' the meaning of 'number_type,' or which fields are actually needed to open a valid request.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Opens a request to move an existing number to Widely.' An agent can tell this initiates a number port rather than quoting one. It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings like quote_port, port_requirements, or get_port, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (initiate a port for an existing number), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. It never says to run port_requirements or quote_port first, nor how to follow up once a port request exists.

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