Get Call History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool navigates to the Calls tab and scrapes the visible call list, including the limitation that only visible entries are returned. This is useful beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The Args section is redundant with the schema but harmless, and the Returns section is valuable because there is no separate output schema. The layout is clear and scannable.

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, the description is complete: it states what is scraped, what data each entry includes, the max_calls limit, and the full return shape including the call_type enum. Since there is no output schema, documenting the return contract here is essential and done well.

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 coverage is 100% and the single max_calls parameter is fully described in the schema. The description repeats the default and bound information, reinforcing it but not adding meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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: 'Read recent call history from Phone Link's Calls tab.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like phonelink_get_messages or phonelink_get_photos by naming the Calls tab and the data domain. Further detail about call types and display text reinforces exactly what is returned.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when call history is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list and the focused phrasing provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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