emu_evaluate_curri

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only evaluation but does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, modifies state, or requires specific permissions. It also omits any mention of rate limits or error 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and expected output. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

While the description states the tool's purpose and return type, it lacks essential context such as when to invoke this tool, what inputs are required beyond the two mandatory ones, and how it relates to other call-related tools. This leaves the agent with gaps in decision-making.

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?

The schema provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (calledNumber, callingNumber, policyProfile, callingSearchSpaceName). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient for understanding each parameter's purpose.

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 states the tool evaluates external call routing policies and returns a routing decision (permit, deny, or divert). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like emu_call_action or emu_simulate_call, which could lead to ambiguity.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on scenario applicability, preconditions, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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