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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return-content detail that the response includes per-status people counts, but it does not disclose error behavior, identifier precedence, or other operational constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It immediately states the operation, the resource, the identifier options, and the returned status counts.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is retrieved and which status counts are included. The main gap is that the schema marks both identifiers optional, while the description implies an identifier is needed, without resolving that ambiguity.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names both parameters and indicates they are alternative campaign identifiers, but it does not clarify whether at least one is required, what happens if both are supplied, or the expected identifier format.

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 a read operation on a single VOIP campaign and specifies the returned status counts (waiting, on call, done, failed, skipped). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_voip_campaigns by saying 'One campaign,' but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_voip_report or list_voip_campaigns.

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 only implied: the parenthetical 'voip_campaign_id or voip_campaign_uuid' suggests the tool is for retrieving one campaign when an identifier is available. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_voip_campaigns, get_voip_report, or get_voip_call, nor any exclusion criteria.

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