Answer a request from a call

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world, not idempotent); the description adds the real behavioral detail: the voice stays silent unless announce is true, done still records after the call ends, details are posted to a meeting's chat and may fail, and the voice speaks at the next natural pause. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on of semicolon-joined clauses and parentheticals that reads like stream-of-consciousness rather than structured guidance. Nearly all content earns its place given the asynchronous protocol, but the packaging makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema, multi-step conversational protocol this covers the workflow, timing, approval rules, and failure modes thoroughly. The gap is that with no output schema, the description never states what a call to this tool returns, leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most fields; the description still adds genuine semantics on top: what status vs done mean in the conversation flow, what announce controls, when ok:false applies, and why text must be speakable while links/code/numbers belong in details. It does not explain the requestId format or callId, but those are well covered by the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Answer a request someone on the call made') and anchors it to the sibling tool that produces those requests ('live.requests in wait_for_call'). An agent can distinguish this from send_call_instruction or save_call_note without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit branching guidance is given: status for progress with the first one signalling pickup, done once at completion, 'a small question: answer with done straight away', 'a bigger task: status first, then done'. It also names a prerequisite check ('Before done, check the last wait for an add on the same request') and an approval constraint for side-effecting actions.

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