Get call statistics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral burden is reduced. The description adds that it aggregates metrics over a date range, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions, but could be more detailed about return format.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose and usage guidance. Efficient and to the point.

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 no output schema, the description lists included metric types (totals, durations, dispositions) which partially compensates. However, it does not detail the exact fields or structure of the response. For a simple aggregation tool, this is moderately 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'date range' but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. No additional semantic value from description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves aggregated CDR metrics (totals, durations, dispositions) for a date range, and explicitly contrasts with sibling cdr_get_details for individual calls. This provides specific verb+resource and distinguishes from a key sibling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (summary questions, ASR/ACD analysis) and when not to use, with a clear alternative: 'For individual calls use cdr_get_details.' This covers both usage context and exclusions.

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