Retrieve a call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only." adds nothing beyond structured data. The description gives no additional behavioral context such as what a call record contains, whether it requires a specific permission/scope, or what happens for a non-existent id.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the endpoint; nothing bloated. The only waste is the redundant "Read-only" which restates the annotations.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It stops short of describing the returned call object or error behavior, which an agent would want for a single-resource fetch.

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 description coverage is 100% and the enum for response_format is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics about the id format or how response_format changes behavior.

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 verb+resource combination ("Retrieve a call") plus the endpoint path (GET /calls/{id}) makes clear this fetches a single call record by identifier. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like placetel_list_calls or placetel_list_call_detail_records, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list split from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus placetel_list_calls (find a call) or the CTI/call-center siblings. Usage is only implied by the singular resource name and the {id} path template.

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