call_summary_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating the returned statistics, the default behavior of querying only active sub-accounts, and the ability to override via account_status. It omits finer details like timezone handling or pagination, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a concise list of return values, and two clear parameter usage notes. No repetitive or filler content; every sentence adds useful information.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are not required in the description. The description covers the main filtering parameters and behavioral defaults, making the tool operable. The missing account_ids semantics is the only notable completeness 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains start_date, end_date, time_duration, and account_status with formats/examples. However, account_ids is completely omitted, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to specify which sub-accounts to include, which is a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get aggregated call summary statistics across sub-accounts.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing aggregation, sub-account scope, and combined totals, while also listing the specific metrics returned.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining accepted date parameters (start_date/end_date or time_duration), including concrete examples for time_duration, and the account_status filter with its possible values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like call_disposition_report or call_crosstab.

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