get_library_folder_calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the returned fields (call IDs, titles, curator notes, snippet timing) and stating 'all calls' in a folder, which implies full retrieval. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return fields, usage prerequisites/downstream. Front-loaded with the action, then details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations). The description covers purpose, parameter source, returned fields, and how the output integrates with other tools. Given the complexity, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%: the folderId parameter is fully described as 'Library folder ID (numeric string, from list_library_folders)' with a regex pattern. The tool description repeats this source ('Use list_library_folders to find folder IDs') but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get all calls saved in a specific Gong library folder.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (calls in a library folder), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_calls by the folder scoping. It also lists the returned data (call IDs, titles, curator notes, snippet timing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on prerequisites: 'Use list_library_folders to find folder IDs.' It also suggests downstream usage: 'Call IDs can be passed to get_call_summary or get_call_transcript.' While it does not explicitly name an alternative to avoid, the folder-specific scope clearly implies when this tool is appropriate vs. list_calls. Fairly clear context without explicit exclusions.

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