cdr_summary

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source for behavioral info. It mentions that grouping is computed in Python for cross-backend compatibility, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any permissions. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences plus a parameter list. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 description covers the purpose and parameters adequately given the presence of an output schema. However, it does not specify what the output contains (e.g., fields of the breakdown) or any prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'date_from/date_to' are ISO timestamps and 'group_by' accepts 'hour' or 'day'. It also notes the cross-backend compatibility of the grouping logic, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 it provides a 'Volume and success-code breakdown over a window,' which defines the tool's core function. The tool name 'cdr_summary' reinforces this purpose, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cdr_audit' and 'cdr_count_by_code' by indicating it offers a summarized aggregation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists parameters, without mentioning scenarios where other CDR tools (e.g., cdr_audit) would be more appropriate.

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