get_participant_quality

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context: combines two endpoints, returns participant record and media streams, and explains automatic name resolution. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with a summary, then bullet-like details, then parameter info. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given output schema exists (not shown but indicated), description covers return fields and contrasts with sibling tool. For a tool that combines two endpoints, it is complete for an agent to understand functionality and usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description fully explains both parameters: participant_id as UUID or display name, conference as optional scope for uniqueness. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/title.

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 it provides live call quality for one active participant, combines two endpoints, and distinguishes from get_history_participant for post-call forensics. The verb 'get' and resource 'participant quality' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'For is Alice's call OK right now?' and directs to use get_history_participant for post-call forensics. Also explains name resolution vs UUID usage, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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