aircall_get_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output structure (speaker-attributed utterances with timestamps). However, it doesn't disclose edge cases like missing transcripts or recording availability, which would be helpful.

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 short sentences that immediately convey the purpose and return format. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or repetition.

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-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states what it does and what it returns. The absence of an output schema makes the return-format note valuable, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., transcription must be enabled) for full completeness.

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 only parameter, call_id, is fully documented by the schema with the description 'The call ID'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add param semantics, and it doesn't go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gets the transcription of a call and specifies the return format (speaker-attributed utterances with timestamps). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_summary or get_sentiments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_realtime_transcript.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this over aircall_get_realtime_transcript or other alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool's function, so it meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks clear context.

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