search_phone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes passive collection and authorization needs, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or behavior with invalid numbers. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no extraneous words, front-loading the core purpose and then adding key details. Efficient and to the point.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions return values (carrier and geolocation data) and the underlying tool (phoneinfoga). It covers format and authorization. However, it could detail the output structure or data fields for completeness.

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 50% (only json_output described). The description adds the E.164 format requirement for the phone parameter, which is valuable beyond the schema. The json_output parameter is already described in schema, so no additional value.

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 gathers carrier and geolocation data for a phone number using phoneinfoga, specifying the verb, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which target different data types (e.g., domains, IPs).

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?

It provides explicit usage format (E.164) and authorization constraints (own assets or authorized target), and indicates the passive, public-source nature. However, it doesn't specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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