Get call recording

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — empty-result semantics (no error, just nothing found) and a privacy caution about sharing audio URLs. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation, and it omits things like rate limits or pagination.

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-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then behavioral notes, in four tight sentences. Minor waste in repeating 'Read-only' after the readOnlyHint annotation, but overall appropriately sized with no digressions.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned ('metadata and recording_url'), the exactly-one input rule, and empty-result behavior. Enough for correct invocation; only engagement-level details (pagination, URL expiry) are absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the 'exactly one of call_uuid or recording_id' mutual-exclusion constraint is not expressed by the schema's two independent optional properties. That makes the parameter guidance additive rather than redundant.

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 ('Find ... and return') and resource ('the recording(s) of a call') with account scope, and distinguishes itself from the generic list_recordings/delete_recording siblings by being a point lookup keyed on a call or recording. It is clear, but never names the alternative tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: 'Provide exactly one of call_uuid or recording_id' and warns that 'an empty result means no recording exists,' which steers correct usage and interpretation. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this over list_recordings or other recording tools.

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