blockrun_phone

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description confirms write operations (buy/release) and discloses state changes, costs, and polling behavior. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 the complexity (multiple endpoints, stateful operations, voice presets, E.164 format), the description is comprehensive, covering required dependencies, pricing, and data formats. References the 'phone skill' for further details.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: explains path options, body usage (omit for GET), and provides examples (e.g., body shapes for voice/call). This goes well 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 specifies 'Phone-number intelligence, US/CA number provisioning, and outbound AI voice calls' and lists detailed paths with actions, making it clear and specific, differentiating from 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?

The description provides explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'from must be a number your wallet owns' and 'Provision one with phone/numbers/buy first'), and details each path's purpose and cost, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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