get_call

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only notes that account_id auto-resolves. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data scope. For a read operation, more transparency about what 'full detail' includes would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences plus a brief parameter list. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action, and 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return format. However, with no annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., uniqueness of call_id, any limitations) would improve completeness.

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 0%, so description compensates well: specifies call_id prefix format, account_id auto-resolves, and fields are comma-separated extra fields with a reference to list_calls. This adds significant meaning beyond bare 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 description clearly states 'Get full detail for a specific call,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_calls (list many) and get_call_recording (different resource).

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 need full detail on one call given a call_id, and mentions auto-resolution of account_id. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance (e.g., when to use list_calls instead).

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