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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns call details, but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, optional filtering, and return details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a list tool with two parameters, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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?

The description mentions optional date range filtering, which aligns with the two parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already documents, meeting the baseline for high 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Gong calls'), and mentions optional date range filtering. It distinguishes from the sibling 'retrieve_transcripts' by focusing on call metadata rather than transcripts, though not explicitly contrasted.

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 implies usage for retrieving call details with date filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_transcripts' or other potential tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns ('detailed transcripts including speaker IDs, topics, and timestamped sentences'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if call IDs are invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It consists of two sentences: the first states the purpose and required input, and the second describes the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving transcripts for multiple calls), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but misses important contextual details like error handling, permissions, or limitations. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly, which it only does at a high level.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'callIds' clearly documented as 'Array of Gong call IDs to retrieve transcripts for.' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 purpose: 'Retrieve transcripts for specified call IDs.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('transcripts'), and scope ('for specified call IDs'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'list_calls' (which likely lists calls rather than retrieving transcripts), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'list_calls' or any other context for selection. The only implied usage is that you need call IDs to retrieve transcripts, but this is basic parameter information rather than strategic guidance.

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