Get Line

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: sensitive fields (eSIM activation codes, PIN/PUK) are deliberately redacted and access is permission-gated. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before assuming the response is incomplete. It stops short of describing error or not-found behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the payload summary first, the redaction caveat and alternate tool second. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a useful level of detail while flagging what will be missing. Complete enough to call correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on a single uuid parameter, the schema already documents numberId and points to telgea_list_lines / telgea_get_user_plan as sources. The description adds nothing about the identifier, 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 names the resource ('One line') and enumerates what it returns: state, activation and termination-scheduled timestamps, and current/previous SIMs. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like telgea_list_lines and telgea_get_line_connection. An explicit verb is absent, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 routes the agent explicitly: if you need eSIM activation codes or PIN/PUK, use telgea_get_sim_credentials instead, gated on permission. That is a concrete alternative with a condition. It does not clarify when to prefer this over telgea_get_line_connection or telgea_list_lines, so the guidance is partial rather than exhaustive.

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