get-call-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the types of data returned (attendees, topics, highlights, next steps, key points, call outcome), which gives some insight into behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the response format, leaving gaps in transparency for a no-annotation tool.

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 efficiently states the action and resource, then lists the relevant detail categories. No unnecessary words or repetition are present, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (attendees, topics, highlights, next steps, key points, call outcome), providing a reasonable understanding of what the tool returns. However, it does not mention error behavior or response structure, and with no output schema it could have been more explicit about the format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 one parameter (callIds) with a complete description ('Array of Gong call IDs to retrieve details for'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond referencing 'specific calls' and the types of details, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('detailed information about specific Gong calls') and enumerates the content (attendees, topics, highlights, etc.). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get-call-transcript or search-calls, but the listed fields imply a distinct purpose of retrieving comprehensive call metadata rather than transcripts or search results.

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 the tool is used when you have specific call IDs and need detailed call information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., first find call IDs via search-calls) or exclusions (e.g., use get-call-transcript for transcripts). The usage context is only implied by the phrasing 'for specific Gong calls'.

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