Communications (e-mails, calls)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose result ordering (newest first), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a page_token parameter, default page size, permission requirements, or the fact that only logged (not live) comms are returned.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the optional filters trailing. No wasted words, though the semicolon clause packs several ideas together.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing on pagination, limits, the type enum, and how this differs from the sibling log tool. It is materially under-specified for a tool of this breadth.

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, yet it only alludes to two of seven parameters (query via 'text', received_since via 'period') and the matter/contact scoping. The type enum, limit, and page_token are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (logged communications) and names the two subtypes (EmailCommunication, PhoneCommunication) plus the scoping entity (matter or contact). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling clio_communication_log, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 implies the retrieval context (comms of a matter or contact) but never says when to use this versus clio_communication_log or clio_contact_get, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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