List Call Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default date behavior (current date), project_id default from config, pagination details, return format (JSON array), and common failure HTTP statuses. This is rich, non-redundant information that helps the agent predict behavior.

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 paragraph with multiple sentences, but each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (function, date defaults, use case, config default, return format, read-only, errors, requirements, endpoint). It is structured logically, opening with the core action and then adding details. Though longer than the typical two-sentence standard, it earns its length with substantive content.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and a REST endpoint. The description explains the return type, pagination, error handling, and default behaviors, which is essential for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not enumerate the fields inside each call log, but given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap and the description is otherwise thorough.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds a few useful refinements: the date parameter behavior (if none provided, current date), default project_id source, and pagination semantics. This goes beyond the schema baseline, so a 4 is warranted.

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: 'Returns all Call Logs for the current date.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_call_log, show_call_logs, update_call_log, and delete_call_log by framing it as a discovery/read operation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states 'Use this to discover call logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context and the phrase 'before calling a tool that needs it' imply the alternative. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar more than the explicit alternatives bar.

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