get_call_recording

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 only says 'get', which implies read-only, but does not state whether the call recording is returned as a URL, binary, or something else, nor does it mention authentication requirements or any side effects. The description is completely silent on behavior beyond the bare verb.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimal, so while there is no wasted text, the brevity sacrifices useful detail. It is not overly verbose, but it also lacks structured elements like examples or clarifications.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a result (e.g., a file, a link, or binary data). It does not, so an agent cannot anticipate the return format or how to handle the response. The simplicity of the tool lowers the bar, but the lack of any output information is a significant gap.

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 100% for the single parameter call_id, which is described as 'ID звонка для получения записи'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully, and the description does not contribute extra semantic value.

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 a clear verb and resource ('get call recording by ID') and the parameter call_id is implied. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding distinguishing detail, such as what the recording represents or how it is returned. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_call_status, though the difference is obvious from the name.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent has no signal for when to choose get_call_recording over get_call_status or other siblings.

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