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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructiveikuha. The description adds that it returns both a transcript and a summary screporting the completed-call requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does without 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?

With a single documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering side effects, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly note what happens if the call is not completed, but the 'completed call' qualifier conveys the main constraint.

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 only parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description does not need to add extra meaning. 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the transcript and summary of a completed call.' It clearly identifies both the payload and the precondition (completed call), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_call_status or get_usage.

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 narrows usage to completed calls but does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. The 'completed call' qualifier gives context, yet an agent isn't told what to use for in-progress calls or where this fits among the many sibling tools.

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