ringcentral_list_phone_numbers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does indicate a read-only operation via 'GET' and 'List', but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, pagination semantics, or whether 'all' numbers includes only active ones. The GET endpoint adds some transparency but not enough to fully disclose behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, the API endpoint, and a bulleted list of parameters. Every element earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose makes selection easy. No fluff or redundancy.

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 relatively simple list tool with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, API, and parameter semantics. The only notable omission is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is already penalized in Dimension 2. With an output schema present, lack of return-value documentation is acceptable.

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 description's Args section adds meaning to all four parameters, which the schema leaves entirely undocumented (0% coverage). It provides concrete examples for usage_type ('DirectNumber', 'CompanyNumber') and status ('Normal', 'Reserved'), and the page/per_page names are self-explanatory. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it could offer explicit allowed values or 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 'List all company and extension phone numbers', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_extensions or list_internal_contacts. The API endpoint '/restapi/v1.0/account/~/phone-number' reinforces the exact scope.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, such as list_internal_contacts or list_extensions. It states what it does but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this resource is the right choice.

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