ghl_voice_ai_get_call_logs

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: OAuth scopes (readonly), 1-based pagination, date range interpreted in IANA timezone, and the endpoint header/version. All behaviors are consistent with no contradictions.

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 well-structured with a brief title, clear purpose statement, and a list of supported operations. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it includes endpoint and OAuth scope details that might be considered extra, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many enums, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description provides a good overview of filtering, sorting, pagination, and timezone handling. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but the schema already defines inputs well, so the gap is minor.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters. The description only groups them into 'filtering by agent, contact, call type, action types, and date range' and mentions pagination params. This adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 'List Call Logs' and explains it returns call logs for Voice AI agents scoped to a location. It lists specific filters (agent, contact, call type, action types, date range) and mentions pagination and sorting, distinguishing it from sibling tools like the single call log getter.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for listing call logs with various filters and pagination). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with the similar sibling 'ghl_voice_ai_get_call_log' for single logs, so it misses explicit exclusion guidance.

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