phone_get_auto_receptionist_call_handling_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a read-only GET operation, but the description doesn't state what the return format is, whether the autoReceptionistId must exist, what happens on a non-existent ID, or any auth requirements. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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?

The description is one concise sentence at 11 words, which is appropriately brief for a simple single-parameter GET tool. There is no wasted text or redundancy. It's under-specified but not bloated.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description leaves key gaps: no return value explanation, no description of the autoReceptionistId parameter, and no differentiation from the user-level settings tool. Given that the sibling phone_get_user_call_handling_settings exists, some guidance about scope differences would improve completeness.

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 description must compensate for the single parameter autoReceptionistId. However, the description never mentions this parameter, doesn't explain where to find the ID, or clarify the expected format. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the agent must guess what identifier is expected.

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+resource: 'Get call handling settings for an auto receptionist (IVR).' It identifies the specific resource type (auto receptionist/IVR) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like phone_get_user_call_handling_settings, which targets a different entity (users). The 'IVR' gloss adds useful clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that phone_get_user_call_handling_settings exists for user-level settings, nor does it explain scenarios where querying an auto receptionist's settings would be appropriate. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and siblings.

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