list_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it explains the intentional limit=100 default, flags that this differs from the API default, and gives concrete pagination instructions involving _metadata, offset, and cursor values. This goes well beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and endpoint lead, followed by the important default behavior and pagination guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list endpoint with 7 optional, well-documented parameters, the description covers the important behavioral nuances: default limit, bulk orientation, and pagination. It does not describe the full response shape, but the mention of _metadata and the absence of an output schema make the current guidance reasonably complete for invocation.

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 100%, and every parameter already has a description in the schema. The description adds real value by explaining the limit default rationale and how to use offset versus cursor-style pagination, which helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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?

Description states the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'calls', and includes the endpoint (GET /calls). It is clearly a collection-level operation, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_call or other siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives useful context about bulk requests and pagination, implying when list behavior is intended. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over get_call, create_call, or update_call, nor does it state any exclusions.

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