get-call-transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully specifies that the output includes speaker attribution and timestamps, going beyond a minimal statement. It does not disclose edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately states the key return characteristics, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what the response contains. It could elaborate on response structure or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity, the information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the single 'callIds' parameter as an array of Gong call IDs. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline for high schema 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 tool retrieves full transcripts for Gong calls, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transcript'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get-call-details by specifying transcript-specific output (speaker-attributed text with timestamps).

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 use when a caller needs a call transcript, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get-call-details or search-calls. Usage context is inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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