get_call_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'AI-generated' nature, implying non-deterministic output, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like potential latency or variability. This is acceptable given the annotations, but minimal beyond them.

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 core purpose, and every clause adds value. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, the presence of readOnly/openWorld annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the summary includes and offers clear usage guidance relative to sibling tools, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 sole parameter callId is fully documented in the schema with type, pattern, and description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get an AI-generated summary of a single call' and enumerates the summary components (brief overview, key points, topics, action items, detailed outline). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_call_transcript, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'This is the recommended way to understand a call - use get_call_transcript only if you need exact quotes.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to prefer an alternative, which is excellent.

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