ClickPhone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds behavioral scope beyond annotations by specifying that the search covers all public pages and FAQs and that results are matching fragments with source URL and slug. This is useful, though it does not discuss ordering or result-size behavior beyond the schema's limita field.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, the return format follows, and the usage guidance closes the description efficiently. Every sentence earns its 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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the search scope, the return shape, and the starting-point use case. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of fragments with URL and slug, and the schema handles parameter details. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents both parameters well. The description only adds the idea of a 'free question' ('întrebare liberă'), which reinforces the intrebare field but does little to clarify limita or add format details beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Caută într-o întrebare liberă') and a clear resource ('toate paginile publice ClickPhone şi prin întrebările frecvente'). It also describes the return value (fragments with URL and slug), making the tool's purpose concrete. The phrase 'Începe de aici când nu ştii ce pagină îţi trebuie' differentiates it from more specific page-lookup siblings like clickphone_pagina.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Începe de aici când nu ştii ce pagină îţi trebuie', which tells an agent to use this tool when the target page is unknown. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool only transmits the request and doesn't answer anything, and adds a safety-relevant rule about explicit user consent and previewing the sent data. It doesn't mention side effects like whether a confirmation is sent, but it is clear it's a write operation with user approval. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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 concise despite covering multiple rules. It front-loads the purpose, then gives conditions and exclusions in a clear order. Each sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It's slightly longer than minimal but justifiable given the compliance requirements.

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 tool that simply forwards contact info, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to call, what data to collect, consent handling, previewing, and how it differs from other tools. There is no output schema, but the tool's effect is straightforward. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 each parameter already described. The description reinforces the requirement for explicit consent (which the schema also states) and the phone/email requirement, but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. It does provide some context about not inventing data, but that's a usage guideline rather than parameter meaning. 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Trimite') and resource (contact details to the ClickPhone commercial team) with a specific purpose (so the user can be called with an offer). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'Pentru întrebări despre preţuri foloseşte celelalte unelte', making it unambiguous which tool to pick for this action.

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?

It gives explicit conditions: call only after the user explicitly asks to be contacted and provides name plus phone/email; do not fill in data from context or mark agreement on your own initiative; show what you're sending first. It also states the exclusion: for price questions use other tools. This is thorough and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotenttarifa. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what data categories are exposed, which is especially valuable without an output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence lists the full set of contact data with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes to an agent's understanding of the tool's scope.

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?

Given zero parameters, strong annotations, and no output schemaeb, the description serves as a complete output specification: it names every category of contact data the tool can provide. No essential information for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 parameterseb, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to clarify inputs, and the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 clearly identifies the resource and enumerates its contents: phone, support schedule, department emails, non-stop channels, address, and fiscal data. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like clickphone_tarife or clickphone_pachete, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 described content strongly implies when to use it: whenever contact information or support channels are requested. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the domain is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: without an argument it returns a list, with a slug it presumably returns the corresponding guide. No contradiction with annotations, and no destructive behavior is implied.

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 concise sentences communicate both the tool's purpose and its no-argument behavior. There is no redundant or filler content; the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main behaviors adequately. It does not explicitly state what happens when a slug is provided beyond the schema's hint, and there is no output schema, but the complexity is low enough that this is a minor gap.

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 schema covers the slug parameter fully, and the description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that omitting the argument returns the guide list. This supplements the schema's parameter description rather than repeating it.

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 identifies the tool as providing step-by-step configuration guides for ClickPhone devices/apps and explicitly states that no argument returns a list of guides and a glossary. It is distinguishable from siblings by content, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools.

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: call with no argument to get the guide list/glossary, or pass a slug to retrieve a specific guide. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over clickphone_cauta or clickphone_pagina, and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level context—what a package includes—but does not disclose how the tool behaves, such as whether it returns a list, renders a page, or provides static documentation.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the resource name and includes concrete details, though it sacrifices clarity by omitting a verb and reading more like a label than an operational description.

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, and the description does not clarify whether invoking this tool returns data, opens a page, or presents static content. Although the zero-parameter read-only nature makes invocation simple, an agent cannot be certain what a call will yield or how it differs from clickphone_tarife or clickphone_pagina.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters needing documentation, and the description's mention of package contents does not conflict with or obscure any parameter semantics.

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 the resource—ClickPBX packages—and lists salient attributes such as monthly price, included accounts, simultaneous calls, and minutes. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement; it never says whether the tool lists, returns, or describes packages. It also does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like clickphone_tarife.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With seven sibling tools including clickphone_tarife, clickphone_pagina, and clickphone_ghid, the description provides no routing or exclusion context. Usage is only weakly implied by the noun phrase, not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return format (Markdown) and the public-page restriction, implying private pages may not be retrievable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose (what it returns, in what format) is front-loaded, followed immediately by the input requirement and its source. Every word earns its 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?

Complete for a single-parameter, read-only tool. It covers the return format, input variants, and slug provenance. The only minor gap is behavior on invalid or non-public slugs (error handling), which is not specified, but this is a small omission for such a simple tool with strong annotations.

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% and the slug parameter is well documented with examples ('custom_pbx', 'sip-trunk') and the note that a full URL is also accepted. The description adds marginal value by pointing out slugs come from clickphone_cauta, reinforcing the acceptable input forms beyond the schema.

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: 'Întoarce textul complet al unei pagini publice ClickPhone, în format Markdown' (returns the complete text of a public ClickPhone page in Markdown). The scope is clear and it differentiates from siblings — it fetches page content, whereas cauta searches, cere_oferta requests offers, contact handles outreach, etc.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: it says the slug comes from clickphone_cauta results, which tells the agent how to source the input, and it accepts either a slug or a full URL. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct enough that purpose alone differentiates them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the tool receives company details and returns the package, monthly price, inclusions, and follow-up pages. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The main action and output are front-loaded, and the disambiguation from clickphone_pachete is placed at the end as a crisp usage note. Every sentence earns its 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 read-only recommendation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, inputs, expected output, and alternative tool. It could go slightly deeper on the exact output format, but the schema documents optional parameters and annotations cover side-effect behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description highlights the key input categories (users, existing PBX, remote work) but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and does not mention minute_lunare or apeluri_simultane. The schema itself does the heavy lifting here.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Recomandă soluţia şi pachetul potrivit pentru o firmă' and names the two possible solutions (ClickPBX or SIP Trunk). It also explicitly differentiates itself from clickphone_pachete by saying it is for fit, not for price. An agent can recognize when this tool applies without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: use it for 'ce mi se potriveşte', not for the price of a specific package, which belongs to clickphone_pachete. It also lists the decision inputs (users, existing PBX, remote work) that signal when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description goes beyond that by explaining the parameter's effect on the result (Romania vs international, phone number type detection). It fully discloses the tool's conditional behavior, adding significant value over the annotations.

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 well-structured sentences, the first stating purpose and the second detailing parameter behavior. No redundant words, and the most important info (purpose) is front-loaded. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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-optional-parameter tool with read-only and idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description covers all possible invocations (no arg, destination, phone number) and their outcomes. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema describes the parameter only as 'name of country/destination or Romanian phone number' with 100% coverage. The description enriches this with concrete examples, notes that Romanian and English country names are accepted, and explains the phone-number case. This substantially clarifies what values are valid and what the tool will do with them.

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 the tool returns ClickPhone rates for calls and SMS, and explains the behavior for both no-argument and argument cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (cauta, pachete, etc.) by focusing specifically on rates, so an agent can easily select it for tariff inquiries.

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 gives explicit usage context: no argument returns Romania rates, a destination searches among 600+ destinations, and a phone number triggers fixed/mobile detection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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