Test a SIP trunk

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: it puts traffic on a third party, records an outcome on the trunk, and warns that a negative result is not proof of failure. These are non-obvious side effects and interpretation caveats that annotations do not convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action, the third-party side effect, the false-negative caveat, the preferred alternative, and the required scope. It is dense but not bloated, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, interpretation guidance, alternative routing, and authorization requirement. Nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully described in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but none are needed; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Send'), resource ('a SIP trunk'), and mechanism ('TCP connect or unauthenticated SIP OPTIONS to the carrier'), and clarifies that it records the outcome on the trunk. This is far more specific than the title and clearly distinguishes the tool's function from status checks.

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?

It explicitly says 'Prefer check_sip_trunk_status', naming the alternative and signaling that this tool is secondary. It also explains when the result may be misleading (carriers drop unauthenticated probes), giving the agent enough context to decide whether to use it.

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