List call history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'SUMMARIES ONLY' with specific fields, and states that transcripts and recording URLs are 'deliberately omitted.' It also imposes an ISO 8601 timezone-offset requirement for dates. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in annotations or schema.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: scope, return content, exclusion with alternative routing, and date format requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a list tool with 7 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: response content summary, field list, exclusions, date format, and a pointer to the sibling for deeper data. Pagination and defaults are already described in the schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented. The tool description adds value by framing all parameters as optional and by giving a concrete date format example, but it does not introduce new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This is slightly above the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List calls from the Ringg workspace with optional filters.' It differentiates itself from the sibling get_call by explicitly noting that transcripts and recording URLs are omitted and that get_call should be used for those, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it says this tool returns summaries only and that get_call is the alternative for a specific call's transcript or analysis. It also provides the required date format with an example, so an agent knows exactly how to supply date filters.

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