qobrix_list_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It describes the return shape ({ data, pagination }), the expandable associations, and the domain context. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or discuss rate limits/auth, the list verb and return-pagination detail make the behavior reasonably transparent for a read-only 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?

The description is information-dense and well-structured: it states purpose, return shape, includable associations, and workflow in a compact block. The phrase 'zero tolerance on missed follow-ups' is slightly rhetorical but reinforces the operational context. No significant redundancy with the schema.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately includes the pagination return shape. It also explains the tool's role in the activity timeline and how to audit contacts. Given that all parameters are already documented thoroughly in the input schema, this description sufficiently completes the picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter-level semantics. The tool description adds use-case context and mentions included associations, but those are also listed in the schema's include parameter. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 'List call records'—a specific verb and resource—and immediately frames it within the 'Activity Tracking / Follow-up workflow'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qobrix_list_meetings and qobrix_list_email_messages by focusing on calls, and from qobrix_get_call by being the list operation.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is provided: 'use with qobrix_list_meetings and qobrix_list_email_messages for a complete activity timeline' and 'To audit a contact's engagement: search calls, meetings, and emails by their contact UUID.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and names alternatives/associated tools.

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