get_recordings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns a download URL and optionally a transcription_url when transcription is ready, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or that it is a read-only operation, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose first and then highlights key return values. It is concise with zero filler, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately compensates by naming the download URL and transcription_url as key return fields. It also implies a list response ('list of ... recordings'). While it doesn't detail the full response structure or pagination, these are partially covered by the schema parameters (count/offset). The coverage is good for a simple list-retrieval 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—only reinforcing the 'period' association with from_date/to_date. It does not clarify count, offset, or call_session_history_id beyond their existing schema descriptions, so the 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 states the action: 'Get a list of call recordings for the period' (Получить список записей разговоров за период). It specifies the verb (get) and resource (list of call recordings) with a time-period qualifier. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_call_history or get_record_storages, so it misses the full 5.

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 implies usage for retrieving recordings within a date range but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned, so it only weakly suggests the intended context.

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