List SIP registrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether the snapshot is live, how staleness is handled, or how large the result set can be.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the returned-field summary comes first and the use-case framing second, so the agent gets the essentials immediately.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the return fields. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination, and liveness, which matter for a registration list an agent may need to reason about.

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 100% and the profile parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description's phrase "on a Sofia profile" merely restates the filter without adding semantics such as what happens when an unknown profile is supplied, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (registered SIP users on a Sofia profile) and enumerates the fields returned (contact URI, user agent, expiry), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closest sibling, freeswitch_sofia_status, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

Two concrete example questions ("is this extension registered", "which devices dropped off") give a clear picture of the situations this tool serves. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer when to prefer freeswitch_sofia_status or asterisk_endpoints instead.

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