Fetch all call center calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is a restatement rather than added context. The only genuine addition is the HTTP endpoint path; nothing is said about pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or volume of results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler prose. The redundant 'Read-only' clause is mild waste that duplicates the annotations rather than informing the 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?

The tool has five optional params and no output schema, and the description never explains what a call record contains or how this listing differs from placetel_list_calls. An agent cannot confidently choose this tool or predict its results from the definition alone.

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 all five parameters (date, page, per_page, queue_ids, response_format) are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not even clarifying what queue_ids accepts.

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?

States a specific verb plus a distinct resource ('call center calls'), which is separable from the general placetel_list_calls and placetel_list_call_detail_records siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below the top score.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as placetel_list_calls or placetel_pick_call_center_call. The agent is left to infer from the name alone which call-listing tool to pick.

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