List SIP trunks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned trunks include platform_ip and origination_uri, and explains how those fields should be used with the carrier. It also states the required OAuth scope, which is useful operational guidance 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 tightly written: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides practical guidance on the returned fields, and the third gives the required scope. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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-only list tool with three optional, well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation, key response fields, carrier configuration implications, and authorization scope. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the descriptions for limit, ending_before, and starting_after fully document their semantics, including the mutual exclusion of the two cursors. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the operation ('List the account's SIP trunks') with a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes the list operation from sibling get_sip_trunk and create/update/delete tools, and adds useful context about the key fields each trunk carries.

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 makes clear this is for listing the account's SIP trunks and notes the required `sip_trunks:read` scope, giving the agent a concrete prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_sip_trunk, but the listing context and sibling names make the intended use evident.

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