Hierarchy: company phones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc., and the description consistently states 'Read-only'. It adds valuable context about cursor-based pagination (response contains phones array and cursor) and the requirement for an active plan, going beyond the 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?

Three sentences with no fluff: first states purpose and method, second describes response format, third covers requirements and safety. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, pagination, and a key prerequisite. While it does not detail error conditions or the exact format of phone numbers, the combination of schema, annotations, and description provides sufficient completeness for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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 only parameter 'cursor' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds that it should be omitted for the first page, providing extra guidance for pagination. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 returns phone numbers of the managing company in the account hierarchy with cursor-based pagination. It specifies the internal function (list_company_phones) and distinguishes from sibling hierarchy tools like hierarchy_get_employees_v1 and hierarchy_list_items_by_employee_id_v1 by focusing on company phones.

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 mentions the prerequisite of an active account-hierarchy plan, guiding when the tool is usable. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose relative to sibling tools.

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