teams_call_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: coverage is bounded to the 50 most recent chats and results are ordered newest first. However, it omits auth/permission needs, pagination, and what a call record contains, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint stated early; there is no filler. The trailing ellipsis suggests the text may be truncated, which slightly undercuts an otherwise tight delivery.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It never describes the return shape (e.g., call participants, duration, timestamps) or the permission requirements, which an agent would want given nothing else carries that information.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter-level semantics are required or missing.

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 ("Lists") and resource (Microsoft Teams calls and meetings), plus scope ("50 most recent chats, newest first"). It implicitly reads as distinct from siblings like teams_read_chat_messages or teams_search_messages, but it never names or contrasts them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With several sibling Teams retrieval tools (teams_read_chat_messages, teams_search_messages, teams_list_chats), the agent gets no help deciding when call history is the right pick.

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