get_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the performance characteristic (faster than get_call_summary) and listing the specific metadata fields returned, which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose, content, and usage guidance without any wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It lists the key fields returned and provides a usage hint. Minor gap: no output schema exists, so the response structure is not fully specified, but the listed fields mitigate this.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single callId parameter, including a pattern and description. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents it.

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 'Get metadata for a specific Gong call' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the metadata fields (URL, direction, scope, system, duration). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is faster than get_call_summary when only metadata is needed, making it unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: use this tool when only call metadata is needed, and names the alternative get_call_summary as a slower option. This meets the 'explicit when/alternatives' criterion.

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