duo_get_phone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get full detail' signals a read-only fetch and implies a complete object is returned, but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, authentication requirements, or error responses. Adequate for a simple getter, but minimal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and lookup method.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly identifies the input and the expected result ('full detail'). It could note response shape or error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the bar.

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 coverage is 100% because the lone parameter phoneId is described as 'Duo phone_id.' The description only repeats that the phone is looked up by this ID and adds no new semantic detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full detail for a single phone'), and the lookup key ('by phone_id'). This clearly differentiates it from list-style sibling tools like duo_list_phones and duo_list_user_phones.

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 phrase 'by phone_id' clearly implies this tool is for fetching one known phone, as opposed to enumerating phones with list tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.

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