Get Line Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: "Live" signals real-time freshness rather than cached data, and the IMEI/IP handling rule (share only with the line's holder or IT) is a privacy constraint no annotation conveys.

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 sentences, zero filler. The return payload leads, the usage scenario follows, and the data-handling caveat closes — each clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the single parameter via the schema plus a privacy rule. Minor gaps remain: no note on behavior when a line is inactive or suspended, and no indication of whether results are cached.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting it as "Line id." with UUID format and pattern. The description never mentions numberId, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific resource and scope: "Live network status of a line," then enumerates exactly what comes back (attached state, last seen, serving network, 2G–5G, APN, IMEI). The word "live" implicitly separates it from the static metadata tool telgea_get_line, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario ("my phone has no signal" support), which is a real routing signal an agent can match against a user complaint. It provides no when-not conditions and does not point to alternatives such as telgea_get_line or telgea_get_sim_credentials for related data.

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