calls_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though limit/after parameters suggest it might be), what happens on errors, or what the output format looks like. 'Search' implies querying rather than mutation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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?

Extremely concise at just 5 words, but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but lacks necessary elaboration. While efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with 5 parameters and complex filtering logic.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects for filtering and sorting, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the search capabilities, result format, error conditions, or how to construct valid queries. For a search tool with this level of parameter complexity, much more guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. The description mentions 'specific filters' which only hints at the filterGroups parameter, ignoring the other 4 parameters (properties, limit, after, sorts). It doesn't explain what properties can be filtered, what operators are available, or how to structure filter groups. The schema provides structure but no semantic 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?

The description 'Search calls with specific filters' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (calls), but it's vague about what 'specific filters' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like calls_list or calls_get by implying filtering capability, but doesn't specify how it differs from other search tools like emails_search or meetings_search beyond the resource type.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose calls_search over calls_list (which might list all calls without filtering) or other search tools for different resources. There's no indication of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases.

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