get_call_page_views

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns page views with timestamps, is paginated, and that account_id auto-resolves. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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 concise: two short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose and clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, paired usage, all parameters with semantics, return format (JSON string with page_views[]), and pagination. Given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, this is fully complete.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool's description includes a dedicated 'Args' section that explains each parameter: call_id format, account_id auto-resolution, per_page max, and page indexing. This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'visitor's page-view history behind a call' with timestamps, distinguishing it from siblings like call_eligibility_check. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicitly pairs this tool with call_eligibility_check for conversion debugging, providing a clear usage context. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context strongly implies it is the go-to tool for pre-call browsing analysis.

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