retell_get_concurrency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and that data is 'current live,' which implies real-time status. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or output format, though these are minimal for a simple getter. It adds some context beyond the name but could be more explicit about safety or data scope.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning its place perfectly.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what data is returned (live concurrency and limits). Without an output schema, more detail on the exact response structure could be useful, but the simplicity of the operation makes the description sufficient. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description correctly focuses on the result rather than inputs. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so there is nothing to compensate for.

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 resource ('current live call concurrency and concurrency limits') clearly distinguishing this tool from all sibling tools, none of which address concurrency. It fully explains what the tool does.

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 for monitoring concurrency but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, or any exclusions. Since no other concurrency tool exists, alternatives are not mentioned, but context like 'for your Retell organization' gives some scoping. The use case is clear but implicit.

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