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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that real purchases are billable, that test=True avoids charges, that dry_run makes no write calls, that there is no undo except release_numbers, and that the return rows contain tpn_id. This is excellent transparency for a mutating, money-spending tool.

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 and front-loaded with the most critical warning and workflow requirement. The Args block is compact and each line adds value. The return-value note is brief and actionable. No sentence is wasted.

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 tool's complexity, lack of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, mandatory dry-run workflow, cost, irreversibility, parameter semantics, and the next step. The only notable gaps are the undocumented account_id and token_name parameters, which prevent a perfect score.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for phone_numbers, area_code, quantity, test, and dry_run, including the 1-500 range, the mode distinction, and the exact source for phone numbers. However, account_id and token_name are not explained at all, which is a noticeable gap given the schema provides only titles and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Purchase CTM tracking numbers.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by positioning it as the purchasing step, and even references the downstream configure_numbers and the undo path release_numbers. The cost warning ('Real purchases cost money unless test=True') further clarifies the tool's real-world effect.

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, actionable usage rules: ALWAYS call with dry_run=True first, show the user the plan, and get explicit confirmation before dry_run=False. It also explains the relationship to search_available_numbers and configure_numbers, and names release_numbers as the only undo path. This is model behavior for guiding an agent through a high-stakes workflow.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does imply mutation ('apply'), states the at-most-one-route constraint, gives ID prefix conventions (CQU..., VOM..., USR...), and notes that user_id 'rings an agent'. But it never states whether existing number configuration gets overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens to unspecified settings — a notable gap for a config-mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structure is sensible on paper — summary line, guidance paragraph, then args list — but it repeats the 'Pick at most ONE route' sentence nearly verbatim twice with different route enumerations, wasting space and creating ambiguity about which enumeration is authoritative. This is a real structural defect, not merely verbose.

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 17-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. Four parameters (account_id, token_name, user_default_action, user_no_answer_seconds) go unmentioned, and there's no guidance on defaults that materially affect behavior, such as user_default_action='voicemail' and user_no_answer_seconds=25, which an agent would need to make sound choices.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for several parameters: tpn_ids (TPN...), name (with {n} and {number} placeholders and an example), source_id (TSO... or numeric), receiving_number_ids (RPN), and route_override. It also enumerates route params with ID formats. But account_id, token_name, user_default_action, and user_no_answer_seconds are entirely undocumented, and the route parameters lack semantic explanations of what each route type actually does.

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?

'Apply a name, tracking source, and one call route to one or many numbers' is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that clearly identifies the tool as a configuration operation over tracking numbers. It is distinguishable from siblings like buy_numbers (acquisition) and release_numbers (teardown). Not a 5 because the purpose is somewhat buried under the duplicated route-guidance paragraph, and the identity isn't crisply framed against the configure family.

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 a concrete prerequisite and interaction pattern — 'Get ids from list_routing_targets and let the user choose them' — and an explicit exclusion for route_override ('only if the named routes don't fit'). However, there is no contrast with buy_numbers or release_numbers on when to configure vs acquire/release, and the duplicated 'Pick at most ONE route' sentence lists different route sets each time, which could mislead the agent about which routes are valid.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is a listing operation and instructs the agent to defer to the user's choice, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects (likely none, but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact return format. The description adds some behavioral nuance but leaves significant gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and then parameter details. It is reasonably concise, though the parameter list for kinds is somewhat verbose. Every section earns its place, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also fails to explain the purpose of account_id and token_name, and gives no indication of pagination or error behavior. While it provides usage instructions, it is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema, leaving an agent to guess about return format and omitted parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers 'kinds' and 'search' with detailed semantics: the allowed subset for kinds and the default set, and the case-insensitive substring behavior for search. However, it completely omits 'account_id' and 'token_name', which are likely authentication/context parameters. This leaves half of the parameters unexplained, making the description insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List everything a tracking number can be attached or routed to.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle phone numbers (search_available_numbers, buy_numbers, etc.) or identity (whoami). The purpose is specific and immediately actionable.

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 instructions on how to use the tool's results: present options to the user, never pick for them, and use a numbered list or search for more than four results. This is strong practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for other scenarios, relying on the sibling names to imply that.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It explicitly warns 'Destructive and irreversible' and discloses the confirmation requirement: 'Refuses unless confirm=True; ask the user first.' This is exactly the safety-critical behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 three short sentences with the most critical warning ('Destructive and irreversible') front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The description adequately covers safety and usage, but it leaves two optional parameters (account_id, token_name) unexplained and mentions nothing about return behavior or failure modes. Since those parameters are optional and the key confirmation behavior is documented, the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 needed to compensate for the four parameters. It only addresses confirm, mentioning that the tool refuses unless confirm=True. It does not explain tpn_ids, account_id, or token_name, leaving their semantics largely undocumented.

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 verb and resource: 'Release (delete) tracking numbers.' The parenthetical 'delete' removes ambiguity, and the destructive nature distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_numbers or configure_numbers. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it misses the top score.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use this only when the user explicitly asks,' and a typical scenario: 'to clean up test numbers.' It also describes the expected flow of asking for confirmation. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives to prefer in non-deletion cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job: it explains search behavior (inference of searchby modes), the return format (compact rows with specific fields), and instructs the agent to show results to the user before buying, which is a behavioral expectation. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether this is a read-only operation) or rate limits, but the description is still informative.

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 for different modes, making it easy to scan. It fronts the purpose and then provides essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: it explains modes, international usage, return fields, and next steps. It's concise yet comprehensive for a tool with many parameters.

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 tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it covers the main search modes, international options, return fields, and the expected workflow (show results to user). However, it doesn't explain the meaning of all return fields (e.g., lata, hipaa_friendly) or account_id/token_name usage, which could be critical for correct invocation in some scenarios. Minor gaps remain.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description explains the semantics of area_code, address, number_prefix, searchby, and country/operator/pattern, which are the main parameters. However, it does not explain account_id or token_name, which are likely identifiers for multi-tenant use. Given the low coverage, the description compensates partially but misses some parameters, warranting a 3.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('available CTM tracking numbers') and distinguishes the tool's purpose from buying them, explicitly saying 'before buying them' and later 'let them pick before calling buy_numbers'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like buy_numbers. The scope (US/CA and International modes) is clearly outlined, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: it is for searching before buying, and it explains how searchby modes are inferred when omitted. It also mentions the alternative (buy_numbers) implicitly, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond 'buy_numbers' in the last line. Sibling tools like configure_numbers and release_numbers are not mentioned as alternatives, but the description's context is sufficient for most agents.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only resolution operation and surfaces the key behavioral trait — token labels may not match the resolved account. It omits the output format, but for a simple identity check that is a minor gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage directive follows in the second. 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 simple identity tool with two optional params and no output schema: the description covers purpose, sequencing, and the one critical caveat. The exact return shape would be a nice addition but is not essential for a whoami-style call.

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 should compensate, but it never explains what account_id and token_name do or how passing them alters resolution. The two optional nullable parameters are left to inference, though the description's mention of 'token' and 'account' loosely maps to 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 states a specific verb ('show') and a precise resource ('which CTM account the server will act on, and where the token came from'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings that buy, search, configure, and release numbers — this is the identity-resolution tool in a purchase workflow.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'call this first' and to relay the resolved account name before buying anything, with the underlying reason stated (a token can map to a different account than its label suggests). This is direct, actionable routing guidance relative to buy_numbers and the rest of the workflow.

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