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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned attributes (queue, agent, answer status, queue wait time), which is the main thing an agent needs to know before calling; pagination caveats live in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the two operational constraints, in two tight sentences. The trailing "GET /call_center_calls" is endpoint trivia that earns little, but it is a single clause.

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?

No output schema exists, so listing the reported fields is exactly the right compensation, and paging is covered in the schema. The only gap is the absence of any routing hint versus the sibling call-listing tools, which matters in a catalog this size.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the pattern for date and the paging contract. The description reinforces which parameter is mandatory and the intent of queue_ids but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 resource (call-center calls for one day) and enumerates the dimensions reported (queue, agent, from/to, answer status, timings). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the general placetel_list_calls by scoping to call-center calls, though it never names that sibling 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?

"date is required; narrow to queues with queue_ids" gives the core invocation constraints, and the queue reference points to placetel_list_call_center_queues for id discovery. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over placetel_list_calls or placetel_list_call_detail_records, which an agent must infer.

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