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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for a non-obvious disclosure: excluded numbers still have their messages saved and visible via get_messages and webhooks, only the bot's auto-reply is suppressed. It does not describe the returned record shape, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two clauses, both load-bearing: the first defines the resource and its membership, the second preempts the obvious misconception about message visibility. Definition is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, what is needed to call it correctly is present, and the behavioral clarification is a genuine bonus. Because there is no output schema, a short note on what the list entries look like (bare phone numbers vs. objects with labels) would have made this complete.

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?

Only one parameter (project_id) at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains it is returned by dosai_list_projects. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('the project's list of phone numbers where the bot never replies') and immediately defines the membership semantics (staff, teachers, managers, the owner's own people). The plural 'list' verb cleanly separates it from dosai_add_never_bot_numbers and dosai_remove_never_bot_numbers.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to inspect the exclusion list, but there is no explicit 'use when' clause, no mention of the add/remove siblings, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference across ~100 siblings.

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