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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: requires direct:tasks scope, ownership enforcement (another account's task_id returns Not found), the full state machine, the return shape including pending_question with expires_at, and confirmation that it changes nothing and starts no call.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then polling states, auth/ownership, return values, and a short example. Every sentence carries operational value and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully specifies the return shape ({task_id, state, outcome, duration_seconds, transcript, answers, summary, cost}, plus pending_question). Combined with the state machine and auth notes, an agent has everything needed to call and poll correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents that task_id comes from call_business. The description adds a concrete format example (task_id='dv_9a3') and ties the parameter to the ownership/Not found behavior, providing meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the state and outcome of a business call placed with call_business. It explicitly distinguishes this from get_line_calls (calls your answering line took) and from answer_call_question, so an agent can tell exactly which tool to use.

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?

Gives explicit polling guidance: call it again until the state is final, with queued/dialing/in_call as in-progress and completed/no_answer/voicemail/refused/failed as final. It also names answer_call_question as the alternative when input_required appears within the 45-second window.

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