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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the data provenance: a call only appears if something logged it into Apollo, and it discloses the shape of the response (pagination, breadcrumbs, faceting, pipeline_total).

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 with no waste. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying caveat about logged versus telephony data earns its place without bloating the description.

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?

The tool is a read-only search with fully described parameters and an output schema present. The description adds the key non-obvious caveat about data provenance, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke safely and correctly.

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?

All 12 parameters have individual schema descriptions and 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add parameter-level guidance beyond that, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search logged calls in this workspace.' It also enumerates the returned fields and explicitly distinguishes these records from telephony data, which helps separate it from raw call-log or other search tools.

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 when to use the tool — when you need logged call records in the workspace — and clarifies a boundary ('not telephony data'). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus sibling search tools such as get_apollo_emailer_messages_search.

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