search-calls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return payload ('full details including attendees, topics, highlights, and next steps') and does not disclose pagination, maxRecords behavior, filter combination semantics, or the read-only nature of the operation. This is a minimal disclosure for a search tool with no safety hints.

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: first sentence states purpose, second states output value. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of filler or tautology.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but omits crucial invocation context: all parameters are optional, how filters combine (AND/OR), maxRecords default, and pagination behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to correctly use the tool in complex scenarios.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra semantics about parameter interactions, defaults, or edge cases (e.g., how callIds interacts with date filters). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description lists filters but does not enrich the parameter meanings 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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Search for Gong calls by date range, user, workspace, or call IDs.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates from siblings like get-call-details and find-calls-by-company by enumerating distinct filter dimensions.

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 implies usage by listing supported filters (date range, user, workspace, call IDs), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list-calls or find-calls-by-company. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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