get_call

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Get status/outcome' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state 'read-only', nor does it describe error cases, auth requirements, or whether the operation is safe to repeat. The 'async recovery path' hint adds some context but not enough behavioral detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 only one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential context: the origin of the call handle and the async recovery path. It is slightly thin on explicit usage guidance or alternative tools, but for a simple getter, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 only lists 'call_id' as a string. The description adds meaning by linking this ID to 'a call handle returned by call_place', which clarifies what value to pass and where it originates. This goes beyond the schema's bare title, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action ('Get status/outcome'), the resource ('a call handle'), and the context ('returned by call_place (async recovery path)'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like call_place (which places the call) and verify_place (which likely verifies a place). The verb+resource+context is specific and 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 implies when to use this tool: after call_place returns a handle, and specifically in async recovery scenarios. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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