List outgoing communications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context beyond that: the required OAuth scope (outgoing_communications:read) and that page_token retrieval is 'bounded opaque', warning the agent not to treat it as an unbounded scan.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the scope requirement is easy to spot. 'Reads Calendly data' is mild filler that could be dropped, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 8 parameters fully documented in the schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate. It omits anything about result ordering (e.g., by created_at) or what an 'outgoing communication' record actually contains, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 schema already documents count, account, all_pages, max_items, page_token and the created-at bounds. The description only echoes page_token usage and adds no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('List outgoing communications'), matching the title but stating the operation plainly. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g., list_activity_log or list_events), so an agent gets no help distinguishing similar list tools.

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?

'Reads Calendly data' restates the obvious and gives no when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives, no condition for choosing this tool over list_activity_log or list_events, and no exclusions.

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