List calls / call results (CDR)

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

Discloses the required OAuth scope (cdr:read) and the underlying endpoint and data provenance (auto-dialer, manual, inbound, dispositions), which are not derivable from the annotations or schema. It stops short of discussing pagination behavior or result volume despite page/limit params existing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with endpoint and permission before the resource description. No wasted text, though the raw 'GET /v1/calls' fragment is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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?

For a 9-filter list tool with no output schema, the description should at least outline filter semantics and paging behavior. It explains none of that, leaving the agent to infer how date range, status, direction and agentId interact and how results are paged.

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 only 44% and the description says nothing about any of the 9 filters. page, limit, agentId, campaignId and direction carry no explanation in either place, so the description fails to compensate 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?

States a concrete resource (unified call history spanning auto-dialer, manual and inbound calls, with agent dispositions) and implies a list/read operation. It is clearly distinguishable from make_call/hangup_call and from list_campaigns/list_dispositions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_recordings.

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?

Gives one positive use case ('read call outcomes back into a CRM/ERP') but no conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. An agent knows roughly why it would call this, but not when to prefer it over list_recordings or list_dispositions.

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