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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the REST endpoint path and the notion of a historical record, but does not discuss return format, errors, or authentication, leaving some behavioral context unstated.

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 compact sentences with the core retrieval purpose front-loaded. The endpoint path is somewhat implementation-level rather than agent-facing, but it does not bloat the definition significantly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description is largely complete. It does not explain the returned fields or not-found behavior, but the core operation is sufficiently clear for 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 coverage is 100% and the single call_id parameter is already documented as 'Sakari call id.' The description reinforces that the lookup is by id but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific resource and retrieval scope: one call history record by id. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_calls by specifying a single record, though it does not name the alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and the required call_id parameter, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus sakari_list_calls or what prerequisites exist. It provides only minimal contextual guidance.

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