Search Gong Calls

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the return structure (list of calls with metadata), the pagination cursor, and the response_format choices. It also includes practical examples of how to phrase queries. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits details like rate limits or empty-result behavior.

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 well-organized with clear sections but is slightly redundant: the return value is described twice (once in the opening paragraph and again in a dedicated 'Returns' line). It could be tightened by merging these statements, making it more concise.

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?

Given 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns, includes examples for date parameters, and mentions pagination. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or rate limits, but it is complete enough for typical usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing ISO 8601 date examples (e.g., '2024-01-01T00:00:00Z'), clarifying the response_format enum and default, and offering a conversational mapping example ('Find all calls last week'). This enriches understanding beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 the tool's function: 'Search for recorded calls in Gong within a date range.' It specifies a verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gong_search_calls_by_participant, despite the date-range focus being a distinguishing factor.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find calls for a specific time period, then use gong_get_call_details or gong_get_transcript for deeper analysis.' This tells when to use the tool and what to do next, but it lacks exclusions or alternative search methods, such as mentioning gong_search_calls_by_participant for participant-based searches.

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