get_call

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that account_id auto-resolves if omitted and fields are comma-separated extra fields, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or that the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get').

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 short and uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be documented. The description covers the three parameters adequately, but could mention that account_id defaults to the current context if not provided.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the call_id prefix, auto-resolution of account_id, and comma-separated fields, adding value beyond the schema's title and type.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get full detail for a specific call.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for a specific call'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calls or get_call_recording.

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 implies usage when you have a call ID and want full details, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that list_calls provides a summary view with fewer details.

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