List trunk IP ACL entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description still adds real context by explaining stateless pagination ("pass page/per_page (or limit/offset) on every call. Nothing is saved between calls") and restating the read-only nature. The only blemish is naming page/per_page parameters that do not exist in the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and who it's for, then the operational pagination caveat. Slightly marred by the extraneous page/per_page reference, but no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned data (IP addresses and CIDR ranges) and covers pagination behavior. It stops short of saying whether paging metadata or a total count is returned, but that is a minor gap for a simple list endpoint.

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 50% (limit documented, offset bare). The description mentions limit/offset but adds no format, defaults, or range semantics beyond what the schema already says, and it introduces page/per_page params that aren't in the schema, which adds confusion rather than meaning.

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 (List) and resource (IP access control entries) and then defines what the resource actually is — IPv4 addresses/CIDR ranges permitted to send SIP traffic to trunks without digest credentials. That definition cleanly separates it from sibling tools like add_ip_acl_entry, update_ip_acl_entry, delete_ip_acl_entry and from list_trunk_credentials.

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?

"Use it to audit which PBXs, SBCs or carriers are trusted" gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g., use list_trunk_credentials for digest-authenticated senders), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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