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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds helpful result-field semantics: scheduledAt null for immediate calls and startedAt null until the call starts. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 consists of precisely two sentences: one for purpose, one for output field behavior. Both are valuable and concise; no filler or redundant details add 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?

For a tool with 7 filter parameters and no required fields, the description is sparse. It provides no notion of filter scoping, pagination, default ordering, or result limits. Although an output schema exists, the lack of parameter and usage context leaves the agent to infer heavily.

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 only 14%, so the description must explain the seven parameters. It mentions only output fields, not the meaning of to, from, status, limit, caseId, or contactId. Agents cannot learn which filters are available or how date/time windows work from this description.

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?

The description states the verb 'List' and the resource 'calls in the connected ErzyCall organization', making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_call, but the list action is implicit enough to recognize.

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 implies usage when a listing of calls is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_call, search_contacts, or another sibling. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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