phone_get_account_call_history

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

No annotations are provided (fine), but the description also fails to state behavioral facts: it doesn't mention pagination behavior, result ordering, whether call history is immutable, rate limits, or that it requires admin-level scope beyond just echoing the OAuth scope string. For a read-only data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Efficient two-sentence description with zero wasted words. The scope string is useful context. However, brevity here trades off against substance that other dimensions needed.

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?

This tool has 4 parameters with only 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description should compensate by describing return structure, pagination, and behavior, but instead it's minimal. Incomplete for a data-retrieval tool with this profile.

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 only 50% (from/to are documented, page_size and next_page_token are not). The description adds nothing beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what page_size maximums mean or how pagination by next_page_token works. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states the tool gets the account's call history for a date range, with a clear account scope. It distinguishes from siblings like phone_get_user_call_history (which is user-scoped) but not explicitly from phone_get_account_call_logs, which sounds very similar in purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this vs phone_get_account_call_logs, which is a close sibling that could easily be confused with this tool. The date-range context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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