Sofia SIP profile and gateway status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by previewing the returned content (profile/gateway state plus upstream registration) and framing the failure scenario it diagnoses, which matters since there is no output 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the resource and the diagnostic use case both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, and diagnostic context. Only the shape of the detailed (per-profile) view is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 single optional 'profile' parameter is fully documented there, including the summary-vs-detailed distinction. The description says nothing about the parameter, so it neither adds nor detracts; 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?

Names a specific resource (every Sofia SIP profile and gateway) and a concrete state (upstream trunk registration), which is more precise than the sibling freeswitch_status. It differentiates implicitly via the 'switch itself is healthy' framing rather than naming the sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives a clear diagnostic trigger: 'where to look when outbound calls fail but the switch itself is healthy.' That condition also implies when not to use it (generic switch problems belong elsewhere), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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