textverified_list_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it lists calls. It never confirms the read-only nature, whether results are paginated, whether auth is scoped to a reservation, or what happens with an empty result set.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, which is a different problem.

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 needn't be described, but for a four-parameter filtered-list tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unsaid about filters and behavior.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'To', 'reservation_id', 'reservation_type', and 'extra_query' are never explained; the vague mention of 'account or reservation' only loosely gestures at reservation_id/reservation_type.

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?

Clear verb (List) plus resource (voice calls) and scope (associated with the account or reservation). It's distinguishable from textverified_list_sms in principle, but the description never names that obvious sibling, so it stops short of explicit 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives like textverified_list_sms. The phrase 'account or reservation' hints at filtering dimensions but doesn't tell the agent which condition selects which path.

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