get_call_recording

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the short-lived URL expiration, the account-level prerequisite, the non-retroactive recording behavior, and the empty-url failure mode including user opt-out. This goes well beyond a generic retrieval statement.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Each sentence contributes a distinct useful fact: URL expiration, recording prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return shape. The description is efficient and easy to scan.

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 read-oriented tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers input meaning, output shape, expiration, prerequisites, and failure semantics. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or discuss authentication, but the output schema and self-contained nature mitigate those gaps.

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, and it does. It explains that call_id uses a 'CAL...' format and that account_id is the CallRail account ID which auto-resolves when omitted. These details add significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the recording URL for a call.' It clearly centers on the audio recording artifact and a signed URL, distinguishing it from siblings like get_call_transcript and get_call without ambiguity.

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 provides useful contextual conditions: recording must be enabled, calls before that time have no recording, and empty URLs indicate disabled or opted-out recordings. However, it never explicitly compares to alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_call_transcript or get_call, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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