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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping header, the found=false behavior for missing IDs, and an 'Idle $0' note (likely cost-related). It does not mention error handling, side effects, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 concise and directly worded, using telegraphic style. It conveys the essential points without fluff. The phrase 'Idle $0' is slightly cryptic and could be clarified, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions found=false when missing but does not describe the transfer graph payload, potential error codes, or pagination. This leaves gaps for an agent needing to handle the response 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?

The sole parameter call_id is well-documented in the schema with a clear description and example (call_msp_002), and the tool description reinforces its purpose. This exceeds the baseline since the example aids usage, though no additional context about ID format beyond the schema is given.

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 the tool's function: retrieving a single call by ID along with its transfer graph, and mentions the customer detail drawer use case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbx_calls (likely list) and pbx_calls_graph (graph-only), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when a single call with transfer graph is needed, e.g., for a customer detail drawer) and provides practical details like scoping by x-temsor-pbx-key and the found=false behavior when missing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, though this is largely inferable from the name and purpose.

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