get_call_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavior. The 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description doesn't disclose any explicit behavior such as pagination nad, ordering, or absence of side effects. It does add the period-scoping behavior, which is the main value.

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, efficient sentence in Russian with no filler. It states core purpose immediately and does not waste words, but it is slightly under-specified; extra context on what is included or excluded would raise the value.

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 100% parameter schema coverage and a simple read-only operation, the description is almost sufficient. However, given no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling history tools, a bit more detail about the returned data or when to prefer this over get_sms_history would improve completeness.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters fully. The description only reinforces that the two date parameters define a period, adding no extra semantic beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly names the resource ('историю звонков' = call history) and the operation ('Получить' = get), with a period constraint. It is unambiguous about what is returned, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_sms_history or get_transaction_history.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or use cases, so an agent cannot infer when this should be chosen over other history/summary tools.

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