List Aircall calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the six-month history limit, default compact format, and newest-first ordering, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, tightly written, and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the default response shape and points to the call-by-ID path for full details. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema already documents page/per_page, making this sufficient for an agent to select 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 10 parameters individually documented. The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does reinforce the default compact behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'List calls from Aircall's available six-month history' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from get_call by noting that full details require retrieving by ID, which differentiates it from the sibling tools.

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?

Provides useful context: lists calls within a six-month window and defaults to compact metadata, with a hint that complete details come from a call-by-ID request. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use aircall_search_calls for filtered queries, so the guidance is clear but lacks an explicit exclusion.

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