get_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output fields (CLID, duration, wait/ring/hold times, missed call status, disposition) and the read-only nature implied by 'Get.' However, it doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 minimal sentences plus a single argument definition. Every sentence earns its place—purpose, usage condition, return fields, and parameter explanation—with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, when to use it, return fields, and parameter semantics. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, especially with the output schema available.

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 schema provides only a bare string parameter 'name' with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining 'name: The call ID (the id_call field from list_calls),' adding provenance and semantic meaning.

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'Get full details of a single call by its call ID.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_calls or scan_calls, and lists the specific fields returned, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when you already know the call ID,' providing a clear condition for use. It implies a workflow with list_calls by referencing the 'id_call' field, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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