Get Voice Integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the result includes 'status,' which is useful, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or auth requirements. Given the strong annotation coverage, the additional context is sufficient but not rich.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is minimal and directly tied to the schema parameter. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff. This is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what to pass and that it returns status. The only missing element is explicit behavior for non-existent ids (e.g., not-found error), but given the tool's simplicity and existing structured metadata, this is adequate.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (integration_id: string) with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining the parameter's origin and meaning: 'The integration's id (from list_voice_integrations).' This adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema, telling the agent where to obtain the id and implying it should reference a valid existing integration.

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's action: 'Retrieve a voice provider integration by id, including its status.' It uses a specific verb (retrieve), identifies the resource (voice provider integration), and differentiates from siblings like list_voice_integrations by specifying lookup by id. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'by id' and the parameter hint 'from list_voice_integrations' implies a prerequisite workflow—first list integrations to obtain the id, then retrieve details. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for the intended purpose.

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