aircall_get_realtime_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the ongoing-call constraint, which is useful. It does not disclose what happens if the call is not active or if transcription is unavailable, but given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, providing both what and when.

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 simple (1 parameter, no output schema) and has good annotations. The description covers the core usage (real-time, ongoing call) and timing. It could benefit from mention of output format or limitations, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%: the only parameter, call_id, is described as 'The call ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is warranted since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Get real-time transcription for an ongoing call.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time transcription') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aircall_get_transcript by specifying 'ongoing call' rather than completed calls.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this during active calls to see live transcription.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when a call has ended, use aircall_get_transcript), so it falls short of a 5.

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