search_voice_conversations

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

Annotations provide only a title. The description mentions pagination and returns but does not clarify side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. It adds basic transparency but lacks depth given no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads purpose and includes result info. No unnecessary words, perfectly structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but description briefly mentions return fields. It omits pagination metadata, error handling, or defaults like page size limitations that are in the schema but not in description. Slightly lacking for 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond echoing phone filter and time window, which are already in the schema.

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 it searches voice conversations with a time window and optional phone filter. It returns IDs and duration for further analysis, differentiating it from sibling analysis tools like conversation_sentiment or conversation_topics.

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 use for further analysis but does not specify when not to use or compare to alternatives like search_queues. Sibling context suggests distinct purposes, but no explicit guidance is given.

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