List call detail records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining pagination behavior and optional filtering. No contradictions. However, it could detail how pagination is returned but still provides adequate transparency beyond structured fields.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by use cases, then alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or excessive information.

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 9 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description provides sufficient context for typical usage. It mentions pagination and date range but could optionally note that return values include standard CDR fields and pagination metadata. Still, it is largely complete for a list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'with optional filters' but does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No extra insight for specific parameters.

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 lists paginated call detail records for a date range with filters. It uses specific verb 'List', resource 'CDRs', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternatives for aggregate metrics and chart data.

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 provides explicit use cases ('investigate specific calls, verify traffic, or debug call failures') and directs users to siblings for other needs ('for aggregate metrics use cdr_get_statistics; for chart data use cdr_get_trends'), offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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