calls_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), or what the output looks like. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 with a single phrase, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but the dimension scores efficiency alone.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral context, or output format, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'specific filters', which partially relates to 'filterGroups' but doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Search calls with specific filters' states the basic action (search) and resource (calls), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'calls_list' or 'calls_get'. It lacks specificity about what kind of search this is (e.g., full-text, filtered listing) compared to alternatives.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_list' (which might list all calls without filters) or 'calls_get' (which retrieves a single call). The description implies filtering but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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