List SIP trunks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: it discloses that SIP credentials are redacted in the payload and that pagination is stateless with nothing persisted between calls. These are real behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 the resource and returned fields, then pagination behavior, then the read-only tag. Tight and dense; the trailing 'Read-only' restates the readOnlyHint annotation and the page/per_page aside adds confusion rather than value.

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 enumerates the returned fields and covers the stateless pagination contract, which is the main operational trap. It stops short of explaining how the direction filter behaves or what ordering results come back in.

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%, but the description compensates partially by telling the agent to pass pagination params on every call and by naming the direction field among returned values. However, it references 'page/per_page' aliases that do not exist in the input schema, which could lead an agent to send unsupported parameters.

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 SIP trunks on this account') and enumerates the returned fields (name, domain, status, direction, CPS and concurrent-call limits), which immediately separates it from get_sip_trunk. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the 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 ('pass page/per_page (or limit/offset) on every call'), which is operational guidance, but never states when to prefer this tool over get_sip_trunk for a single trunk or whether it needs any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly framed.

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