Get collected keypad input

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only.' in the description adds nothing. What does add value is the enumeration of the return payload, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits important behavior: what is returned when no input was captured, whether the result is retained/consumable once read, and any retention or race conditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the return payload in a compact parenthetical; nothing is redundant. The trailing 'Read-only.' is the one wasted clause since it merely restates the annotation.

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 must carry the return contract, and listing the three result fields is a reasonable start. But for a retrieval tool tied to an asynchronous gather, an agent still lacks the key lifecycle facts: when a result becomes available, whether calling too early returns empty or errors, and how flow_id is sourced.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, flow_id, with 0% schema description coverage and only a hex pattern constraint. The description never mentions flow_id, its origin, or how to obtain it from gather_dtmf, so it does not compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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 ('Return') plus a specific resource ('the DTMF input') and even enumerates the returned fields (digits, call_uuid, signature verification). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling gather_dtmf, which initiates the gather rather than retrieving its result, though it never states that contrast outright.

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?

Linking the tool to 'a gather_dtmf / hosted flow' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g. after the gather completes), no statement of what happens if the gather is still pending, and no alternatives named.

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