Get call status

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 new behavioral context by defining what each state means and signalling that 'completed' comes from the call detail record (i.e., after the fact). It stops short of describing polling/eventual-consistency behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the action and the state vocabulary, followed by a short qualifier. The trailing 'Read-only' restates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the only mild redundancy.

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 conveys the core return semantics (three lifecycle states) that the schema cannot. It omits whether additional fields are returned and how often to poll, which are minor but real gaps.

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% and the parameter description already states that request_uuid from make_call is accepted. The description repeats that information rather than adding format, charset, or error semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Return the current lifecycle state of one call') and enumerates the possible states, which distinguishes it from get_call_details and list_live_calls. It does not name those siblings explicitly, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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 when to use it (after make_call, using its request_uuid) but never states when NOT to use it or points to get_call_details / list_live_calls as alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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