List trunk origination URIs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: pagination is stateless, nothing is retained between calls, and the returned fields (priority/failover order, weight/load split, transport, enabled state) are enumerated.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: identity, payload, pagination contract. Front-loaded with the noun that matters and 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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the returned fields and the pagination model, which is sufficient for a simple read list. The only gap is the undocumented offset parameter and the mention of page/per_page params absent from the schema.

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 50%: limit is documented in the schema (max 100, default 20) while offset is not. The description compensates by explaining page/per_page and limit/offset semantics and the statelessness contract, which is useful, but it also references page/per_page parameters that do not exist in the schema, creating mild ambiguity.

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 (origination URIs on this Vobiz account) and then defines what the resource actually is: the SIP destinations trunks deliver outbound calls to. This cleanly separates it from the create/update/delete_origination_uri siblings.

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 scoping ('on this Vobiz account') is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g. reading a single trunk's URIs via get_sip_trunk). The pagination instruction ('pass page/per_page or limit/offset on every call') is operational guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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