Telofy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. Equating the tool to GET /api/v1/appointments usefully signals a read-only, idempotent operation, and 'dieses Tenants' discloses implicit tenant scoping (no tenant parameter needed). It says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what the records contain beyond the schema's page/limit 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the authoritative API equivalence. Zero 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?

For a simple, no-required-parameter list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the read-only nature (only implied via GET) and the return shape unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and both optional parameters (page, limit) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Listet) and resource (Termin-erfasste Anruf-Ergebnisse dieses Tenants), and the GET /api/v1/appointments reference pins the exact resource. It implicitly separates itself from list_outcomes by restricting to appointment-typed results, but never names the siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With list_outcomes as a direct sibling that also returns outcome data, the choice between the two is left entirely to inference from the German phrase 'als Termin erfasst'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sort order (newest first) and that it is equivalent to a REST read, implying a safe read-only operation. It says nothing about tenant scoping requirements, permissions, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema covers.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering. No filler, though the REST-endpoint analogy is marginally redundant for an agent that only sees tool definitions.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and ordering adequately. It omits any mention of result shape or tenant-permission prerequisites, leaving minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so page and limit (including defaults and max) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Listet die Anrufe dieses Tenants') plus an ordering guarantee ('neueste zuerst'). The resource is clearly distinct from list_appointments and list_outcomes, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are mentioned. The analogy to GET /api/v1/calls implies a standard list read but does not help an agent choose between this tool and its siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Listet' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about authentication, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states. The endpoint equivalence note is mildly useful but not behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted words. The endpoint-equivalence sentence is arguably the least essential, but it is compact and informative.

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?

For a simple, parameterless-required read tool this is largely adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description never indicates the return shape (it enumerates outcome types in passing but not the response structure or pagination metadata). Minor gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters (page, limit) fully documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Listet') and resource ('erfassten Anruf-Ergebnisse') and enumerates the outcome categories (Leads/Tickets/Termine/Infos), which is more specific than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_appointments/list_calls tools, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can differentiate.

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 scope qualifier 'dieses Tenants' implies when the tool applies, and the note 'Identisch zu GET /api/v1/outcomes' gives a technical anchor. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling list tools as alternatives.

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