get_call

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by naming the required scope and disclosing that the response includes the transcript and coaching log, though it omits not-found or missing-transcript behavior.

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 definition is two short sentences with no wasted language, and the core action is front-loaded before the scope requirement.

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 read-only getter with annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential context: it retrieves one call and includes transcript and coaching log. The main remaining gaps are error behavior and parameter format details.

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?

There is one required `id` parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the parameter identifies "a call" and does not explain the ID format, expected source, or any constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get a call") and adds the returned artifacts: transcript and coaching log. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_calls or summarize_call.

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?

It states the required scope `calls:read`, which is useful authorization context. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_calls or summarize_call, nor when not to use it.

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