List calls and meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't: newest-first ordering, a default limit of 20 with a hard max of 100, and the absence of paging. That is substantive context, though it stops short of noting any rate limits or freshness guarantees.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first covers scope, ordering, and return fields; the second covers filters, limits, the no-paging constraint, and the routing alternative. Nothing is padding and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the shape of each result (id, status, brief, outcome) and ordering, and it covers the limit/paging behavior and all filtering axes. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 only 50% (task and contact are documented; limit and channel are not), so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies contact means one E.164 number, channel is phone vs meeting, and limit defaults to 20 capped at 100. This meaningfully fills the schema gap for the two undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List recent phone calls and meetings') and immediately names the returned fields (id, status, brief, outcome), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It also distinguishes itself from get_call and wait_for_call, which cover the single-call case.

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?

It states the three available filters (channel, contact, task) and when they apply, then explicitly names the alternatives for a different job: 'Use get_call or wait_for_call for one call's full result.' It even explains the operating constraint (no paging, narrow with filters), which guides correct usage.

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