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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the description is not obligated to re-establish safety. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required dialer.supervise permission scope, plus a precise inventory of what the response contains. It does not discuss snapshot freshness, refresh cadence, or how large the board can get, which would matter for a live-feed tool.

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?

A single sentence with the resource front-loaded and the permission requirement placed last, which is the right ordering. The parenthetical enumeration of waiting-caller fields is dense but every item carries information the agent cannot get from the schema. Minor cost: the nested parentheses make it slower to parse than a short bulleted list would.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape — and it does, listing the four board sections and field-level detail for waiting callers. Combined with the stated permission requirement, an agent has enough to call this correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any signal differentiating live data from the report-style siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, with campaign_id documented as a 'campaign UUID' and purpose carrying its own lengthy guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about either parameter — it does not say whether campaign_id must be active or what happens for a paused campaign. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource and modality — 'the live board of one campaign' — and enumerates what the board contains (extensions by state, calls in flight, waiting callers, recent answer rate). That is far more concrete than the name alone. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_dialer_report or get_dialer_campaign, which also surface campaign data, so an agent must infer the live-vs-historical split.

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?

'Live board' implies a real-time snapshot use case, and the closing 'Needs dialer.supervise' states a prerequisite for calling it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion telling the agent when to prefer get_dialer_report, list_dialer_attempts, or get_dialer_campaign instead. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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