anrufliste

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: neither read-only/safety character, nor whether results are ordered or paginated, nor what the default limit of 30 implies. Only the 'letzte n Tage' recency constraint hints at behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two telegraphic fragments carry a fair amount of information with no filler, and the filter details are front-loaded. But the leading 'Anrufliste.' merely restates the tool name and the fragmentary, punctuation-light style makes the key/value mapping harder to parse than a single clean sentence would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are optional, keeping the call surface simple. Still, the undocumented 'limit' parameter, its default of 30, and the nullable 'art'/'tage' semantics leave real gaps for an agent deciding how to control result size and filtering.

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 0%, and the description genuinely adds the allowed values for 'art' (eingehend | verpasst | ausgehend | blockiert | AB), which the schema only types as a bare string. However, 'limit' (default 30) is completely undocumented and the interaction between 'art' and 'tage' plus what a null 'art' means are left unstated, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource ('Anrufliste') and enumerates the call categories it covers (eingehend, verpasst, ausgehend, blockiert, AB), which tells an agent this is a call-history listing with type-based scoping. It is terse and noun-only, and it does not distinguish the tool from the closely related sibling anrufbeantworter, but the scope is inferable without opening the schema.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings anrufbeantworter, anrufbeantworter_audio, or protokoll, even though 'AB' in the type list clearly overlaps with the answering-machine tools. Usage is only implied by the resource name; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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