aircall_get_config

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

The annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., what configuration fields are returned or if any authentication is needed), but for a straightforward read operation the minimal disclosure is acceptable.

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 filler. It efficiently communicates the action and resource, and every word is functional.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, read-only hint, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It states exactly what the tool does and for which resource, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (number_id) with a clear description. The tool description repeats the resource context but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('messaging configuration for an Aircall number'), making its purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'aircall_get_number' (which retrieves number details) and 'aircall_create_config'/'aircall_delete_config' (which modify config).

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 implicitly indicates this is for retrieving messaging configuration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as 'get_number' or 'create_config'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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