calls_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search calls with specific filters' implies a read-only operation but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite 'limit' and 'after' parameters), or what happens when no results match. It lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at 5 words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the search functionality's scope, parameter usage, return format, or behavioral constraints needed for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 5 undocumented parameters. 'Search calls with specific filters' only vaguely references 'filters' (matching filterGroups parameter) but doesn't explain the complex filter structure, properties selection, sorting, pagination, or limit constraints. It adds minimal 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 'Search calls with specific filters' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (calls), but it's vague about what 'specific filters' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like calls_list or other search tools (emails_search, meetings_search, etc.). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calls_list or other domain-specific search tools. It mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain what scenarios require this tool over simpler listing options or when to choose other search tools in the sibling list.

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