List SIP endpoints

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 genuinely new behavior: stateless pagination with no server-side state between calls, and an explicit disclosure that passwords are never returned here and must be managed in the console. That data-exposure boundary is real value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then filters, then pagination, then the password caveat — a logical order with no filler sentences. The closing console-redirect sentence is marginally long but does carry the credential-handling information.

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 enumerates the returned fields (username, alias, SIP URI, application, registration state), so an agent knows what comes back. Only the undocumented without_application flag and the mismatched page/per_page reference keep it short of complete.

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 86%, so the schema already documents the parameters and baseline is 3. The description adds the filter dimensions in prose but omits without_application entirely and mentions 'page/per_page' options that do not exist in the schema, which is mildly misleading rather than additive.

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 the SIP endpoints on this Vobiz account') and immediately scopes it with concrete examples (soft-phones, desk phones, WebRTC clients) plus the registrar domain. An agent can distinguish this from list_sip_trunks and get_sip_endpoint without 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 tells the agent which filters are available (username, alias, application, sub-account), which implies the intended usage pattern, but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_sip_endpoint or the sibling trunk tools, and names no exclusions.

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