get_call_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents (metadata, duration, cost, errors, transcript summary), which is useful, and the 'get' verb makes the read-only nature apparent. However, it does not mention pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter, result ordering, date-range inclusivity semantics, or any rate-limit or auth considerations.

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 no filler: purpose is front-loaded, followed by the filter capabilities and the return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter read tool.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly explains return values, which helps. However, with 8 parameters and zero annotations, an agent is left guessing about pagination, result ordering, and how the omitted has_errors filter works. It also leaves no guidance for distinguishing this from debug_call. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including details the description lacks (partial match for agent_name, fromNumber/toNumber/userNumber matching for phone_number, enum values). The description's filter list is largely redundant with the schema and even omits the has_errors filter, so it adds no real parameter meaning beyond baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get call logs for your organization') with clear scope, and names several filter dimensions and return fields. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like debug_call or get_usage_stats, which both concern call-related data.

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?

Usage context is implied by the filter list ('Filter by status, type, date range, agent name, or phone number'), which signals this is the bulk call-log retrieval tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over debug_call (individual call troubleshooting) or get_usage_stats (aggregate statistics), and no exclusions are stated.

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