List call recordings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real value beyond them: the required permission scope 'recordings:read' and the exact response envelope { total, page, limit, recordings: [...] } with field names. It does not describe default sort order or pagination traversal behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with zero filler: endpoint/permission first, return shape second, next-step routing third. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description supplies the response envelope and the auth scope the agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps (sort order, whether filters combine with AND, behavior when no results) are acceptable but present.

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 coverage is 83% (page, limit, number, startDate, endDate, direction all documented or self-evident), so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no filter semantics, and its mention of `filename` refers to a returned field, not an input parameter, so it contributes nothing to parameter meaning.

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 the endpoint 'GET /v1/recordings' and the required scope 'recordings:read', so the resource (call recordings) is unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_calls (calls vs. recordings), leaving the agent to infer the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 final sentence routes forward: 'Pass `filename` to download_recording', which is useful next-step guidance. However, it never says when to use this tool rather than list_calls, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the permission string — usage is only implied.

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