listCallHistoryV2

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose, omitting details on pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'call communication history' (e.g., inbound/outbound, metadata included). This is insufficient.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning the purpose is to list calls for a lead without filtering by agent.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., call details, timestamps, duration), ordering, or pagination behavior. The context is incomplete for a list operation that likely returns a complex response.

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% with descriptions for each parameter, so the schema already explains the parameters adequately. The description adds no extra semantic value or context for how these parameters interact (e.g., offset vs currentId for pagination). Baseline score of 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 verb 'list' and resource 'call communication history' for a lead, with version indication. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like listCallHistory or listCalls, which may have similar functionality but different scopes or versions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings include listCallHistory and listCalls, but the description offers no context on their differences or appropriate use cases.

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