get_phone_numbers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List...phone numbers' signals that this is a read-only inquiry, and the parenthetical adds some data-context detail. It still doesn't explain pagination behavior, response shape, or any account-level constraints such as permissions or rate limits.

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, compact sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a parenthetical that adds relevant scope. There is no waste or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with fully described parameters, and the description conveys that it returns account phone numbers with some associated context such as SMS support and renewal. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could be more explicit about what the returned records contain and how pagination works.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that; 'поддержка SMS' loosely maps to sms_supported, but it adds no meaningful semantics for count, offset, country_code, or application_id.

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 the action ('list') and the resource ('phone numbers of the Voximplant account') clearly in one sentence. It is not a mere tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_sms_history or get_call_history.

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?

No guidance explains when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The parenthetical mentions features like SMS support and renewal, but does not connect them to filter parameters or intended use cases.

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