phone_get_account_call_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the required scope 'phone:read:call_log:admin' and clarifies these are 'legacy-style logs' complementing call_history. However, it doesn't describe pagination/response structure, rate limits, or the difference between account-level vs user-level logs beyond the scope mention.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with purpose (get call logs), scope filter, and sibling differentiation. Slightly could expand on output but is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 4 params, no output schema, and 50% schema description coverage. The description mentions the date range but doesn't elaborate on page_size or next_page_token semantics. It distinguishes from call_history but doesn't fully position it relative to phone_get_user_call_logs or phone_get_call_log_details. No output schema means return format is undocumented.

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 50% with 'from' and 'to' described. The description reinforces the date-range semantics ('for a date range'). However, page_size and next_page_token (the other 50%) have no descriptions in the schema and the description doesn't compensate by explaining pagination behavior.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get the Zoom Phone account's call logs for a date range'. Specifically scoped to account-level, explicitly distinguished from 'call_history' as complementary legacy-style logs. Strongly differentiates from sibling tools like user call logs.

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 mention that it 'complements call_history' and the scope scope 'phone:read:call_log:admin' implies account-admin usage context. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use this vs phone_get_user_call_logs or phone_get_call_log_details), no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope token.

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