List voice applications

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a hard 20-per-page Vobiz cap and stateless pagination with nothing persisted between calls. The trailing 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and then the operational constraints; nothing is padded. The final 'Read-only.' sentence is the only element that does not earn its place, since it duplicates 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 need not explain return values, and it adequately covers the pagination contract and page-size ceiling. The one gap is the app_name filter semantics, which is left entirely to the schema's brief note.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by explaining that page/per_page or limit/offset must be passed on every call. However, it never explains the app_name 'name contains' filter, and it names page/per_page parameters that do not exist in the schema, which could mislead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Vobiz applications') and immediately glosses the domain object as 'answer/hangup URLs used for inbound calls on linked numbers'. This distinguishes it from get_application, create_application, update_application and delete_application without the agent opening any schema.

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 explains how to paginate but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_application or the create/update/delete siblings. Usage is only implied by the word 'List' and the enumeration scope, so the agent must infer the selection condition.

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