Search Call Transcripts

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real behavioral value: case-insensitive substring matching, the return shape (matching sentences with call context), and the call-scan cap per invocation with remediation advice. It does not mention pagination handling or permission requirements, so it falls short of 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the operational caveat. No filler and every sentence 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description covers the return value (matching sentences with call context) and the scan-cap constraint, which are the main things an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around pagination or result limits, but the definition is substantially complete.

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% with each parameter documented (keywords, ISO-8601 dates, maxCalls default 50 / hard cap 200). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (Gong call transcripts) with scope (keywords, date range). It is clearly distinguishable from list_calls/get_transcripts in practice, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts its purpose, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 operational guideline - narrow the date range if more calls exist than the scan cap - which implies usage context but does not state when to choose this over get_transcripts or list_calls. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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