calls_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost nothing. 'Search calls with specific filters' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a search tool with complex filtering capabilities, this leaves critical behavioral aspects completely undocumented.

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 maximally concise - a single 5-word phrase. While this represents severe under-specification, it's not wordy or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information. The extreme brevity is a completeness failure rather than a conciseness failure.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. A search tool with sophisticated filtering, sorting, pagination, and property selection requires substantial explanation of its capabilities, limitations, and proper usage. The current description fails to provide any meaningful context for the agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage for all 5 parameters, meaning the schema provides no semantic information about what 'filterGroups', 'properties', 'limit', 'after', or 'sorts' actually mean. The description 'Search calls with specific filters' only vaguely hints at the 'filterGroups' parameter but doesn't explain any parameters' purposes, formats, or relationships. This leaves all parameters semantically undocumented.

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 'Search calls with specific filters' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'calls_search' with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the resource ('calls') and action ('search'), it lacks specificity about what kind of search this performs or how it differs from sibling tools like 'calls_list' or other search tools in the system. The description doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from alternatives.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools including 'calls_list', 'calls_get', and other domain-specific search tools (like 'emails_search', 'meetings_search'), the agent receives no indication of when this filtered search is appropriate versus simpler listing operations or other search variants. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or comparative context.

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