get_debt_by_phone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful information by stating that the result spans all personal accounts linked to the phone, but it does not disclose details such as phone normalization, missing-account behavior, or absence of side effects.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the key scope 'all personal accounts linked to the phone' is front-loaded. It could have been more informative, but it is efficiently worded.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least specify the phone input format and when to prefer this over get_debt_by_email. It conveys the return concept but leaves the invocation contract underspecified.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the expected phone format, normalization, or validation rules. An agent cannot determine from the definition whether to provide an E.164 number, local digits, or a country-coded string.

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 resource: debt for all personal accounts associated with a phone number. This also differentiates it from the sibling get_debt_by_email by specifying the lookup channel, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 clear context: use this tool when you have a phone number and need the debt across attached personal accounts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended scenario is evident.

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