Fetch specific recording

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, and the description repeats 'Read-only' rather than adding new behavioral context. The endpoint path is useful but not a behavioral trait; auth requirements, error behavior, and return characteristics are absent.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The redundant 'Read-only' phrase slightly weakens it, but there is no wasted exposition.

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 read-only GET by id, the definition is mostly complete because annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters. However, it does not explain what a recording fetch returns or when to choose this tool over listing recordings.

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%, so the schema already documents the required id path parameter and the response_format enum. The description adds only the endpoint pattern GET /recordings/{id}, which lightly reinforces the id parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching a specific recording, reinforced by the GET /recordings/{id} endpoint. It is clearly not a list or delete operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus placetel_list_recordings or other recording-related siblings. The only contextual clue is that it fetches a specific recording by id, but no alternatives or preconditions are stated.

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