Read one call

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description must add context beyond that. It does disclose the payload composition (outcome, sentiment, summary, extracted details) and the implicit joins with transcript and lead, which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. Failure modes (invalid/missing UUID) are not covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then lists contents. Efficient, though 'full record' plus the enumerated fields is mildly redundant and the closing clause is slightly obscured behind dashes.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming the payload fields and the joined transcript/lead. It stops short of describing error behavior or rate/permission constraints, which are minor for a single-item read.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions callUuid, its format, or behavior on lookup failure. The schema alone gives a bare string type, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific resource (one call's full record) with an explicit enumeration of what that record contains, plus the non-obvious note that transcript and lead are joined in. This distinguishes it from list_calls, get_transcript, and get_lead_for_call without naming them. The retrieval verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that transcript and lead are 'merged in' hints at using this instead of stitching together get_transcript and get_lead_for_call, but no when-to-use or when-not rule is stated. No prerequisite (e.g., needing a valid callUuid) is given.

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