get_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the shape of the returned turns (n, speaker, text), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or transcript completeness beyond what the output schema carries.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the return shape and the usage hint both earn their place. It is terse rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the annotations cover safety, so the core need is met. Still, a retrieval tool with a 0%-documented key parameter and no routing guidance against list_calls or score_call leaves gaps.

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 0% for the single required call_id parameter, so the schema supplies no semantics. The description never mentions the identifier or its accepted form (ID vs name), leaving the agent to infer that the call's ID is the key, which is plausible but unconfirmed.

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 names the resource (a single call) and its contents (numbered turns with n, speaker, text), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_calls. The retrieval verb itself is only implied by "get_call" and "One call," so it stops short of a full verb+resource statement.

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?

"Quote from these turns when scoring" gives an implied workflow context, linking this tool to scoring tasks. However, it never states when to use this versus list_calls or score_call, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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