list_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional date filtering and return metadata, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the 'cursor' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and key details (filtering and return metadata). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return metadata but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, which is hinted at in the schema but not explained. Without annotations or output schema, more context on usage and results would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional date filtering', which aligns with 'fromDateTime' and 'toDateTime', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('Gong calls'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_call_details' and 'get_transcripts' by focusing on listing calls with metadata rather than detailed or transcript data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_calls', which might offer broader filtering options.

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 implies usage for listing calls with date filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_calls' or 'list_users'. It provides some context (date filtering) but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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