Get Port-In

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses the return semantics: a state machine progression CREATED → SUBMITTED → ACCEPTED → SUCCEEDED with failure branches carrying a reason. That return-value context is genuinely additive. It stops short of noting auth requirements or behavior for unknown/invalid ids.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the state lifecycle. No filler, though the telegraphic fragment style sacrifices a little readability.

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 must carry return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by naming the possible statuses and that rejections include a reason. It leaves minor gaps (other returned fields, error behavior for bad ids), but an agent can call it correctly.

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 only one parameter (portInId) and schema description coverage is 100%, with format and pattern already in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics about the id, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Status of one port-in') and enumerates the lifecycle states, so an agent knows this is a single-record status read rather than a listing. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like telgea_list_port_ins_for_line or telgea_get_port_in_requirements, which keeps it from 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The agent must infer that list_port_ins_for_line is for enumeration and get_port_in_requirements/validate_port_in are prerequisites, since the description never mentions them or any preconditions.

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