Search Call Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: compact summary output, lack of owner filtering, and the URL construction pattern for related entities. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main function, then limitations and output hint. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

With 8 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides adequate context: purpose, large-result-set behavior, lack of owner filtering, and URL usage for related entities. It doesn't explain pagination explicitly, but the 'page' parameter is self-explanatory and the output schema covers return values.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not directly elaborate on parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only gives context about related_to/related_to_type being available in output, which is tangential.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Recruit CRM call logs', and adds the outcome 'compact summaries designed for large result sets', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools for call logs and other entity searches.

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 implies usage for large result sets via 'compact summaries' and notes the limitation 'Does not support owner filtering', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any alternative tools. Thus usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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