Get Gong Call Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds transparency about the specific data returned (metadata, topics, trackers, action items, interaction stats, speaker breakdown) and the response_format parameter's effect, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a two-sentence purpose, a usage tip, a compact Args list, a Returns summary, and illustrative examples. 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?

For a simple read-only getter with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and a fully described schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to find the required call_id, what it returns, and example invocations. No critical 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions of both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by including natural language examples ('Analyze call 123456' -> call_id='123456') and stating the default for response_format, which helps agents map user intent to parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed analytics for a specific Gong call' and lists concrete contents (topics, trackers, action items, talk ratios, speaker stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gong_get_transcript and gong_get_call_stats.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use gong_search_calls first to find call IDs', providing a clear workflow prerequisite. However, it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like gong_get_transcript, so it misses the full when/when-not criterion.

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