Get a trunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds context that the tool returns IP ACL entries, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose clearly; second gives usage hint and errors. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns (trunk group + IP ACL entries) and how to get the required ID. Could mention return format but not necessary.

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 has one required parameter trunk_id with description 'Trunk group UUID (find it with trunk_list)'. Description reinforces this by stating 'Use trunk_list first to find the trunk id.' Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra needed information but is consistent.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'one trunk group', scope 'you own', and additional detail 'including its IP ACL entries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trunk_list (list) and trunk_get_endpoint (different resource).

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?

Explicitly tells agent to use trunk_list first to find the trunk id, providing a clear prerequisite. Also lists relevant error types (UNAUTHORIZED, INVALID_ID, NOT_FOUND) for failure handling. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is sufficient.

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