normalize_phone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the core transformation (stripping non-digit characters, optional leading '+') and the '[conductor: verified pure command]' tag signals it is side-effect-free. It does not say what happens on empty input, extensions, or invalid/non-phone strings, nor whether errors are raised or a best-effort string returned.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the operation, the canonical output, and the mechanism, followed by a short provenance tag. The bracketed conductor note is meta-information rather than tool semantics, which is minor noise, but nothing is bloated.

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 single-parameter pure utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input expectations and the exact output shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Only error/failure behavior is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 0% (a bare `string`), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it tells the agent the input is an arbitrary phone string and that non-digit characters (including separators) are acceptable and will be stripped. It stops short of enumerating accepted formats or edge cases, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 ('Normalize') and resource ('phone string') and even pins down the exact output form ('[+]digits'). No sibling tool in the list performs phone normalization, so confusion with slugify, extract_contact, etc. is unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as extract_contact (which may also surface phone numbers) or when pre-normalization is required before other operations. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and description.

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