aircall_get_evaluations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the content (scorecards, feedback, scores) but does not disclose other behavioral details such as failure modes or permission requirements. It does not contradict annotations.

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 is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this description is adequately complete. It explains what is returned (evaluations, scorecards, feedback, scores) and implies the input. It doesn't cover edge cases or response format, but that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity and existing structured metadata.

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?

The schema fully describes call_id with a clear description, so it carries the parameter meaning. The description only reiterates 'for a call' without adding any additional format or usage detail, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets call quality evaluations, listing examples (scorecards, feedback, scores) and specifying scope 'for a call.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aircall_get_sentiments or aircall_get_topics, which target different call data.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the description's clear purpose implies usage for retrieving quality evaluations. The sibling tool list is not referenced, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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