list_calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that results carry scoring/verdict fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or limits on a list operation.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first declares what is returned, the second declares the filters. No filler and well front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description lists them anyway and covers both filters despite 0% schema coverage. The only remaining gap is pagination/ordering behavior for a list tool.

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 coverage is 0% – the parameters are bare 'Rep' and 'Scored' with no descriptions. The description compensates by clarifying that 'rep' is a name and 'scored' is a true/false selector, adding real meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List calls') and enumerates the returned fields (date, rep, customer, turns, scored, verdict), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_call, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence tells the agent which filters exist ('Filter by rep name and by scored=true/false'), implying when to reach for this tool versus an unfiltered pull. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the get_call sibling, so usage is only implied.

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