contact_get_any_phone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool's selection behavior: it returns any usable phone number and prefers mobile over landline. This gives meaningful insight into fallback behavior, though it does not mention edge cases like no phone number existing or potential null returns, but the output schema likely covers return shape.

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 that front-loads the core action and then adds the essential preference logic. No words are wasted, and the phrasing is clear and efficient.

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 simple read-style getter, the description covers the essential decision logic: what it returns and which phone type is preferred. Combined with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, this is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with contact_get_cell_phone, but that gap is minor.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, kod, purpose) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('any usable phone number for a contact'), and adds the key discriminator 'preferring mobile over landline,' which distinguishes it from sibling contact_get_cell_phone. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when any phone number is acceptable, with a preference for mobile. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a cell phone specifically is required, leaving some inference to the agent.

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