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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that child legs are included and that both CDR duration and TaskRouter talk time are returned with source labels. However, it doesn't mention error handling, required permissions, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary detail about child legs and duration types. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides useful information about return contents (child legs, two duration types) but does not describe overall response structure, error cases, or other fields like call status or cost. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the context of 'single call by SID' and explains what is returned, but it doesn't add extra meaning to the timezone parameter beyond what the schema already says. No significant parameter elaboration.

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 full detail'), resource ('single call'), and selection criteria ('by SID'). It also mentions specific output scope ('including child legs'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_calls (searching multiple calls) and call_summary (summary view).

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 usage when a specific Call SID is known and full detail is needed, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like search_calls or call_summary, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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