Check a SIP trunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is free, requires the sip_trunks:read scope, and explains an expected diagnostic discrepancy where probe.reachable false with a healthy Asterisk status is normal. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, explains the diagnostic mechanism, gives a real-world caveat, and includes cost and permission notes without wasted words.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains enough of the result semantics (the two sources, the disagreement, the expected false-positive case) for an agent to interpret the outcome. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and rich annotations, the tool is fully actionable.

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% and the id parameter has a clear example. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but the schema fully documents the only parameter, so the baseline of 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 action (diagnose a trunk) and a distinctive method: comparing Asterisk's qualify result with a live network probe. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_sip_trunk, test_sip_trunk, and get_sip_trunk_logs.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: "Use this first when calls fail with carrier rejections." It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the primary routing guidance is present.

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