voice_ai_get_call_log

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare name—it does not explain what the returned call log contains, whether any side effects occur, or what the response format looks like. Given no output schema and no additional detail, the description provides minimal transparency 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?

The description is extremely concise—a single, clear phrase with zero waste. It is front-loaded and efficient, containing no redundant or irrelevant information. While it sacrifices detail, it earns a 5 on conciseness for its minimal, focused structure.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with annotations covering safety, but the description fails to provide any context about what a call log is, what data it contains, or how the agent should interpret the response. There is no output schema, so the agent is left with only the tool name and a terse description. This is insufficient for confident invocation, especially given the number of sibling tools in the same domain.

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 100%. The parameters `callId` ('Call ID') and `locationId` ('Location ID Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameters.

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 'Get Call Log' provides a clear verb (get) and resource (call log), satisfying the basic purpose statement. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'voice_ai_get_call_logs' (plural), so while it is unambiguous about the operation, it fails to indicate whether this tool retrieves a single call log versus multiple. This is a clear but undifferentiated purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the obvious sibling 'voice_ai_get_call_logs'. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or conditions under which this tool should be selected. An agent would have no basis to decide between singular and plural variants.

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