phone_system_get_number_pool_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as what the returned list contains, whether pagination is supported, or any filtering nuances. With the bar lowered by annotations, this still falls short because it contributes no additional behavioral detail.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list operation, and the front-loaded verb and resource make it easy to scan.

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 with only one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations covering the read-only nature, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of return format, pagination, or how the returned list is structured, which could be important for an agent to correctly consume the result. It is complete enough for a trivial call but lacks richness expected of a well-documented tool.

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 description contains no parameter information at all. The schema fully documents the optional locationId with its default behavior, so the description adds no value beyond the schema. 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 'List Number Pools' clearly states an action (list) and a resource (Number Pools). It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from other phone_system tools like phone_system_active_numbers or phone_system_purchase_phone_number, though it does not explicitly compare to them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the meaning of 'Number Pools' alone, which is insufficient.

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