get_referenced_method_full_name_by_call_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 brief but could be more front-loaded; it uses two sentences with some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'call' and 'method'). While not verbose, it lacks optimal structure for quick comprehension, with room to streamline without losing clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values beyond 'method info', leaving the agent unsure of the response format or content. For a tool with these contextual gaps, more detail is needed.

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?

With 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying the parameter 'id' as 'The id of the call', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Call Id'. However, it doesn't detail format or constraints, keeping the score from reaching 5.

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 states the tool retrieves method information for a call referenced by a call ID, which clarifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('method info'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_method_by_call_id', leaving ambiguity about how this tool's purpose differs from similar ones.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_method_by_call_id' and 'get_method_full_name_by_id', the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, offering only basic functional intent.

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