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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds useful operational context: account-level scope, the specific metric set returned, and the role restriction on the alternative data tool. It does not cover pagination or date-range timezone behavior, but the annotations already establish the safe read-only profile.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose plus metric list first, usage examples second, alternative routing third. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned metrics (call volume, connection rate, voicemail/missed counts, talk time, per-rep performance) does the work of describing the result shape. Combined with annotations covering safety, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the start, end, and team_id parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description implies a date range but adds no syntax or format detail, and it never mentions the team_id filtering parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 (query call reports) with clear scope (account, date range) and enumerates the metrics returned: call volume, connection rate, voicemail/missed counts, talk time, per-rep performance. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling query_account_data for breakdowns it does not cover.

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?

Provides concrete example questions that select this tool, and names the alternative (query_account_data) with the condition under which it applies (counts/breakdowns this tool does not offer) plus a role constraint (owners and admins). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are explicit.

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