Get a call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail: it enumerates the full status lifecycle and explains what a finished call includes (result, outcome, summary, details, transcript, cost). It also notes not_found error behavior. This goes nicely beyond the annotations, though it's not exhaustive about rate limits or auth.

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?

Dense but efficient: packs status sequence, output details, error behavior, and sibling alternatives into three sentences. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values—it does, by describing what a finished call includes. It also covers error cases. However, it doesn't detail pagination (not relevant) or authentication requirements. Given the simple single-parameter tool and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, but could mention that the call must belong to the authenticated user.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description implies that 'callId' refers to any known call, and the schema itself gives a concrete example. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, but the lifecycle context hints at what the callId represents. Slightly above baseline for implicit utility.

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 verb+resource: 'Get one phone call or meeting and its current status.' Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: wait_for_call for waiting, list_calls for finding ids. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 names alternatives and when to use them: 'To wait for a call to finish, use wait_for_call instead; to find call ids, use list_calls.' This gives clear routing without ambiguity.

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