Get Voice Webhook URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false. The description adds useful context beyond these annotations, such as the purpose of the URL (reaching Okareo monitoring) and the conditional necessity of public_id for certain providers. It doesn't describe return format or error behavior, but annotations cover safety/read-only aspects.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a usage directive, and a neatly formatted Args list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, an output schema is present, and annotations are rich, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section comprehensively explains each parameter: provider lists valid enum values, and public_id is defined with its source and when it is required. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inbound webhook endpoint for a voice provider'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling integration tools like connect_voice_integration or get_voice_integration. It also states the intended use of the returned URL, further clarifying its purpose.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool (to obtain a webhook URL for a voice provider) and what to do with the result (paste it into the provider's console). It notes provider-specific requirements for public_id, which is important context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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