get_caller_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation, which is helpful, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects (though likely none). It also does not state what happens when no caller IDs exist or how the verification status is represented, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded with the key information, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose but does not describe the return structure (e.g., array of objects with fields). Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return shape from the description, which is somewhat incomplete but acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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 100% description coverage, so each parameter (count, active, offset) is already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional context about parameter semantics, such as how to combine filters or whether 'active' means 'verified'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Caller ID') and mentions the verification status, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_phone_numbers, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the tool's specific role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or broader context. An agent would not know if this overlaps with get_phone_numbers or get_sms_history, and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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