get_calls_turn_key

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

The verb 'Get' signals read-only behavior, and there is no indication of side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when the key is not found.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter getter, the description and schema are mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and no detail about the response shape, and the relationship to list_calls_turn_keys is left implicit, so an agent must infer some context.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (account_id and key_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implicitly indicating that a specific key is being retrieved.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('a specific TURN key'), clearly indicating a point lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_calls_turn_keys, but the word 'specific' helps distinguish it from a list operation.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool should be used when a particular TURN key ID is known and its details are needed, rather than listing all TURN keys. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the alternative list_calls_turn_keys is never mentioned.

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