conduyt_list_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only nature, newest-first ordering, exact payload exclusions (no transcripts, no recording/voicemail URLs, only has* flags), and the required permission. It stops short of stating pagination/result-envelope behavior or rate limits, which keeps it off a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then payload scoping, then the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place; no restating of the schema's parameter list.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what comes back (metadata plus hasRecording/hasVoicemail/hasTranscript flags) and what does not. All 8 optional params are schema-covered. Missing only result-envelope/pagination or total-count guidance for a list tool.

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 100% (page, per_page, dateFrom/dateTo, status, direction, userId, contactId all documented), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only mentions filter categories generically and adds no field-level semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3.

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 call-history records'), adds read-only and the filterable dimensions (inbound/outbound, status, duration, disposition). It also distinguishes itself from the read-a-single-call sibling by name, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'To read a specific call's transcript, use conduyt_get_call', and states the permission prerequisite (dialer:view). The recommended path for a routine list vs. a transcript read is unambiguous.

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