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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds important behavioral detail: it waits up to about 25 seconds, returns final status and transcript, and lists terminal conditions including call end, human decline, and ring timeout ('missed').

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 two tightly written sentences with the core action and timeout behavior front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information with no wasted wording.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description helpfully explains what is returned and when. Still, it omits parameter meanings, especially session_token, which is a notable gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies what call_id means by mentioning 'a call' and says nothing about session_token, leaving both required parameters largely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check on a call') plus a clear scope ('that was still ringing or in progress'). It distinguishes this polling tool from siblings like wait_for_reply by focusing on call status.

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?

It clearly states the context for use: checking a call that is still ringing or in progress. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as for already-completed calls.

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