phone_get_user_call_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required scope (phone:read:call_history) which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior, whether results are sorted, what data elements are returned, or whether the date range is inclusive/exclusive. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a moderate 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?

The description is concise with two sentences—one for purpose/scope and one for auth. It's front-loaded and efficient with zero fluff. Could arguably mention sibling alternatives in a second sentence, but the brevity is a strength.

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 5 parameters with 40% undocumented, no annotations, no output schema, and a close sibling (phone_get_user_call_logs) creating ambiguity, the description is under-specified. It should explain the history vs logs distinction, clarify pagination via next_page_token, and describe what data the response contains. The description does not fully enable an agent to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, covering userId, from, and to meaningfully. The description adds the scope requirement and confirms the date-range concept. However, page_size and next_page_token are undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a gap. The description adds some value over the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the uncovered 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 clearly states the verb (get), the resource (Zoom Phone user's call history), and the scope (specific user, date range). It distinguishes from siblings like phone_get_account_call_history (account-level vs user-level) and phone_get_user_call_logs (history vs logs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the close sibling phone_get_user_call_logs, which sounds nearly identical.

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. With siblings like phone_get_user_call_logs and phone_get_call_log_details, the agent would struggle to choose between call history, call logs, and call log details. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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