List Voice Calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with stating safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying cursor-paginated behavior and the constraint that only cursor, limit, and ticket_id are accepted. This goes beyond the annotations and schema, providing insight into how the endpoint behaves.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and every phrase contributes information. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how it paginates, and which parameters are allowed. It does not describe the response format, but the annotations (readOnlyHint) and parameter schema provide sufficient context. The pagination mention is valuable, and the tool is not complex enough to require more.

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 (limit, cursor, ticket_id) having a clear description. The description adds the note that the endpoint accepts 'only' these parameters, which is a slight constraint but largely redundant with the schema since only these are defined. It adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'voice calls', with the explicit endpoint path 'GET /api/phone/voice-calls'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gorgias_get_voice_call by indicating the plural, list-oriented nature, and the cursor-paginated behavior is a specific characteristic.

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 description provides clear context: it is for listing voice calls with cursor-based pagination, and it notes the accepted query parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., gorgias_get_voice_call) or when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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