search_calls_by_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it fetches calls and post-filters on parties[].emailAddress, and auto-paginates up to maxCalls. It also discloses the API limitation. This is more than the bare minimum, though it doesn't mention performance implications or rate limits.

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, implementation detail, and use-case extension. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations that establish safety, the description covers the core algorithm, pagination behavior, and an advanced use case. It does not specify default date ranges or what happens when no date range is provided, but the schema covers those details. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions are detailed for each parameter. The description adds some relational context (e.g., domains matching parties[].emailAddress, auto-pagination tied to maxCalls) but mostly reinforces what the schema already states. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find calls involving a specific account/company by matching email domains of external participants.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_calls and search_calls_by_opportunity by its domain-based account matching approach.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (account/company domain filtering) and notes that the Gong API doesn't natively support account-name filtering, giving context for the workaround. It also mentions a specific external tech-stack use case. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as search_calls or search_calls_by_opportunity.

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