Search Gong Calls by Participant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it 'Returns: List of calls the participant was on' and gives an example, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or error handling. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a use-case line, an args list, a returns line, and an example. The example is helpful but adds length; overall, it is concise without being verbose. Every section serves a purpose, though the example could be trimmed slightly.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and annotations present. The description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and an example, making it complete enough for an agent to use correctly. It does not specify date-range inclusivity or pagination, but these are not critical given the simple read-only nature.

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%, so the schema documents all four parameters with descriptions. The description repeats the args but adds a natural language example mapping 'Find calls with john@acme.com in January' to specific date arguments. This example adds marginal value beyond the schema, but does not significantly deepen parameter understanding.

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 'Find Gong calls where a specific person participated, identified by their email address,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like gong_search_calls by focusing on participant-based search via email. The title reinforces this, making purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'Useful for pulling a prospect's or rep's recent call history,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection. A more explicit reference to sibling tools would push this to 5.

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