ghl_phone_list_active_numbers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral details: response envelope structure, version-specific changes (isUnderGhl→isUnderLc), pagination mechanism, and OAuth scopes. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

The description is somewhat repetitive (first sentence duplicated) and contains technical details (endpoint, version) that could be more concise. However, it is well-structured with key information front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the response envelope and pagination. However, it does not cover the behavior of all parameters (e.g., skipNumberPool, includeRcsSenderIds) or the requirement for locationId. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions pagination params but adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema. No additional explanation for searchFilter, skipNumberPool, or includeRcsSenderIds.

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?

Clearly states 'List active numbers' with specific verb and resource. While the purpose is clear and aligns with the tool name, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_phone_list_available_numbers or ghl_phone_list_number_pools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as listing available numbers or number pools. The description does not provide context for appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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