Get Gong Call Transcript

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the return format (timestamped sentences, speaker labels) and the response_format parameter, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with a clear first line, compact argument list, and example. The only issue is minor redundancy where the return value is stated twice ('Returns timestamped sentences...' and later 'Returns: Timestamped transcript...'), but this does not significantly harm readability.

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 2-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, return structure, prerequisite workflow, and an example. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though the exact output format could be more detailed.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds an example mapping call_id to '123456' and restates the default value, offering practical clarity beyond the schema without introducing new semantics.

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 'Retrieve the full transcript of a specific Gong call' and distinguishes this from sibling tools like gong_search_calls and gong_get_call_details. The explicit mention of using gong_search_calls first reinforces its unique role in the workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use gong_search_calls first to find call IDs', providing clear context for when this tool should be used. While it does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the workflow guidance is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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