list_calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, responses are paginated with a next_cursor loop, and the caller needs the `calls:read` scope. Return field shape and rate limits remain undisclosed.

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?

Three short, front-loaded statements: what it returns and in what order, how to paginate, what scope is needed. No filler, and the most operationally important facts come first.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers ordering, pagination, and auth but never describes the response shape beyond implying a `next_cursor` field, nor does it explain filters like `member_id` or `archived`. Adequate to call correctly, thin for interpreting 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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already explains `to`, `from`, `limit`, `cursor`, `archived`, and `member_id`. The description's cursor sentence largely restates the schema's own '`next_cursor` from the previous page' wording, adding no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., how `from`/`to` interact with `period`). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List calls') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from the singular get_call sibling. It stops short of naming alternatives like export_calls or get_call explicitly, so the separation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives the pagination recipe and the required scope, which implies 'use this to enumerate calls.' But it never says when to prefer get_call, export_calls, or the analytics siblings, nor when the archived flag should be used. Usage is implied, not guided.

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