get_combined_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does this well by describing the output shape (total volume, success rate, success score, cost, time series), the default behavior of end_date ('defaults to now'), and the possible values for channel and interval. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or address auth/rate limits, but the 'Get'/'Returns' wording and focus on analytics make the read-only nature clear. A 4 reflects strong coverage without being exhaustive about side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then gives a clear pointer to alternatives, and concludes with a compact parameter list. Each sentence serves a purpose; the Args section is structured and avoids redundancy. It is detailed yet easy to scan.

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 a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is fully complete: it explains what the tool returns, what each parameter does, and when to use sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return structure, but the description still covers the key metrics and time-series behavior, making context complete.

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 input schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate fully. It does: every parameter (start_date, end_date, agent_id, channel, direction, interval) is explained with format hints, defaults, and enumerated values. This makes the tool safely invokable without needing external documentation.

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 and resource: 'Get combined voice + chat KPI dashboard,' and lists concrete metrics returned (volume, success rate, sentiment, cost, per-bucket time series). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that per-channel breakdowns should use get_chat_analytics or list_calls instead.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose (combined voice + chat analytics) and explicitly names the alternative tools for when a different granularity is needed: 'For per-channel breakdowns use get_chat_analytics or list_calls instead.' This is direct when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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