get_call

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious long-poll blocking behavior of wait=true, which the agent needs for scheduling. It stops short of describing pagination or how a still-in-progress call is represented on timeout.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core retrieval purpose comes first and the wait modifier second, correctly front-loading the primary semantics.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does name the payload ('details and transcript'). That is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could say more about what happens when the call is not yet complete or when timeout is reached.

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%, so call_id, wait, and timeout are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates wait=true's effect but adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., how timeout relates to wait) beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Get details and transcript for a specific call') and pins the identifier to call_id. It implicitly separates itself from list_calls by scoping to a single call, though it doesn't name the sibling 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?

It gives actionable context for the wait=true mode ('block until an in-progress call finishes'), which implies when to use it, but it never states when not to use the tool or points to alternatives like list_calls or get_conversation for adjacent lookups.

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