aircall_get_custom_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns. It adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement for 'AI Assist Pro' and the return shape ('results for each custom summary template section'). This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent actionable expectations about licensing and output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes. It states the core purpose first, then provides key qualifiers (license requirement and return format). No unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the required license, clarifies what the response contains, and is consistent with annotations. There is no output schema, but the description explains the return value sufficiently. No obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter ('call_id' with description 'The call ID'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional details about the parameter format or source, but it reinforces the connection to 'a call'. No extra semantic value beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the custom summary result for a call'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('custom summary result'), distinguishing it from siblings like aircall_get_summary by emphasizing the 'custom' nature. The additional context about AI Assist Pro and template sections further clarifies scope.

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 the tool (when a custom summary is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as aircall_get_summary or aircall_get_playbook_result. There is no explicit 'use this vs that' guidance, though the description's clarity about custom summary provides some direction.

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