Get call details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' line largely repeats that. However it adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations — the record only exists for COMPLETED calls — and enumerates the returned fields in lieu of an output schema.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the routing rule, then the safety note — three short clauses with no filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the CDR fields returned and by gating on call completion state. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (call_uuid) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline for this case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (return the full call detail record) and scopes it to COMPLETED calls. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_call_status, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_call_status) and the condition that selects it (call still in progress). The when-to-use boundary is fully specified rather than inferred.

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