List Aircall numbers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds no behavioral traits beyond the resource scope. It does not mention pagination, response shape, or any operational constraints, though it does not contradict the annotations.

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. However, it largely restates the title with only modest clarification, so it is concise but not maximally informative.

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 schema and annotations provide strong structural context, but the description omits usage boundaries, pagination/ordering expectations, and return-value info (no output schema). It is adequate for a basic list tool but leaves gaps for an agent deciding between list and get operations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond clarifying the resource being listed, keeping it at the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'phone numbers' with a clear ownership scope ('owned by the Aircall company'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aircall_get_number or aircall_list_calls. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool name.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references are given. The 'List' verb implies use when a listing is needed, but the description does not state exclusions such as filtering by user/workspace or suggest aircall_get_number for a single record.

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