spix_phone_show

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 states 'Show' (implies read-only) but does not confirm lack of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens with invalid numbers. A minimal description fails to provide assurances beyond the verb.

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 extremely concise (one phrase), which is efficient but may be too sparse to be fully helpful. It is front-loaded with the action, but every word could be more informative without being wasteful. A bit more detail would improve it without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has a single required parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what 'details' are returned to set proper expectations. Without that context, an agent cannot anticipate the response structure or make informed decisions, making the description incomplete.

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 has one parameter with a description ('Phone number (E.164)'), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Show phone number details' clearly indicates a retrieval action for a specific phone number, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spix_phone_list (listing all numbers) and spix_phone_bind/unbind (mutations). However, it lacks specificity on what 'details' entails (e.g., owner, carrier, status).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling context implies it's for a single number, the description does not explicitly state when it is appropriate or mention exclusions (e.g., 'Use spix_phone_show to retrieve details for a specific number; for a list, use spix_phone_list').

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