blockrun_phone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing, lease terms, and distinguishes free vs. paid operations. However, it omits details like rate limits, idempotency, or error handling. Some behavioral traits (e.g., that 'release' is free) are noted, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 sections, front-loading the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to listing multiple endpoints and prices, but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 of multiple sub-ops and no output schema, the description covers essential usage: endpoints, required parameters, prerequisites, and pricing. It references a 'phone skill' for full body shapes, which is a minor gap. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'path' parameter with concrete examples, describes 'body' as JSON with optional shapes, and clarifies 'agent_id' for budget tracking. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond parameter names.

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 handling phone-number intelligence, provisioning, and outbound calls. It lists specific endpoints with brief explanations, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, which are separate skills (e.g., blockrun_chat, blockrun_dex), so no sibling ambiguity exists.

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 usage context, such as requiring a wallet-owned number for voice calls and explaining how to provision one via phone/numbers/buy. It also notes voice presets and E.164 format. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but siblings are different domains, so this is adequate.

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