Get Port-In Requirements

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the result can be returned either as a field list or as a JSON Schema, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the resource, the country scoping, or the output format choice.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what is returned and how the format parameter changes the response. The schema covers the parameter constraints, and the annotations cover safety, leaving only minor details such as country coverage unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does map both parameters semantically: 'for a country' corresponds to countryCode, and 'as a field list or a JSON Schema' corresponds to the format enum. It does not explain the two-letter country code pattern, the default format, or required status, so compensation is partial.

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 identifies the resource as the fields required for a number port-in by country, and it notes the two output representations. It is specific enough to distinguish this from general port-in retrieval or validation, though it does not explicitly name those sibling tools.

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 intended use is implied: fetch port-in requirements for a country. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus telgea_validate_port_in or telgea_get_port_in, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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