find-calls-by-company

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses how matching works via four criteria (CRM associations, participant domains, affiliations, title mentions). This goes beyond a simple 'find calls' statement, though it doesn't mention pagination or return format.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, efficiently lists matching methods, and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, matching behavior, and when to use it. It lacks output format details, but with no output schema and a straightforward search tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand its functionality.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about matching logic but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool finds all Gong calls for a specific company/account, lists specific matching methods, and claims it is the best tool for this use case. This distinguishes it from general search-calls and other siblings.

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 explicitly says 'This is the best tool for finding all calls with a specific customer,' giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for other scenarios.

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