List call activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a fixed, fully specified sort order (pinIndex DESC, callStartedAt DESC, id DESC) and the pagination termination rule. It does not describe what a call activity record contains or any limits on result size, so the added context is solid but partial.

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?

The definition is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence carries operational content (scope, sort order, ID requirement, pagination). The bare 'GET /v1/call-activity/feed' reference is the one piece that reads as a raw API note rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 four-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it: which ID to supply, deterministic ordering, and how to loop the cursor. The main remaining gap is any hint about the shape or size of the returned call activity items, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already states that exactly one of contactId or dealId must be provided. The description reinforces that rule and adds the cursor-termination semantics, but contributes no new meaning about limit defaults, cursor format, or ID format beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List call activities') and narrows scope to activities 'directly attached to the requested contact or deal', which is a real distinction from the sibling list_call_activity_feed. The differentiation is delivered obliquely via an HTTP endpoint reference ('See also GET /v1/call-activity/feed') rather than naming the sibling tool, so it falls short of a clean 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?

It states the selection condition clearly ('Provide contactId or dealId') and gives explicit pagination procedure ('Paginate with the returned cursor until it is null'). The alternative path is hinted at through the feed endpoint reference but never spelled out as 'use the feed tool when you want...', leaving the when-not guidance implicit.

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