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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: newest-first ordering, per-item trimming of runtime_config, a hard character cap (25,000) that can make pages shorter than limit, and a named pagination.omitted case for oversized calls. This is exactly the kind of operational detail the structured fields do not convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scope, with zero filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (trimming, page bounds, pagination continuation, omission).

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 carries the return shape well, describing item contents and the pagination object's next_cursor, has_more, and omitted fields. The only shortfall is that project_id and full organization_id semantics remain thin, but for a paginated list tool this is close to complete.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning for limit (page bounded by both count and characters) and cursor (continues listing, valid only while has_more). However project_id is undocumented in both schema and description, and organization_id's workspace-default behavior is left to the schema alone, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (List), resource (workspace's calls), and scope (one bounded, newest-first page). It further disambiguates from the sibling get_call by noting the record is returned without runtime_config while get_call returns the full record. An agent can distinguish this from other list_* tools without opening any 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?

It routes the agent toward get_call for the full record and explains pagination continuation via next_cursor/has_more, giving clear context for how to iterate. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when... / not when...' statement against the broader sibling set (e.g. get_call_transcript), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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