yeastar_list_call_reports

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-mutating list operation and clarifies the aggregate nature of the results, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or how the aggregation is computed. These are useful but not critical for a straightforward list tool.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is placed second. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to select and invoke it. It defines the result as aggregate summary call statistics and the only meaningful alternative. It does not enumerate expected summary fields, but that is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including formats and defaults. The description only repeats the optional start_time/end_time bound, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('List') and resource ('aggregated call reports') and then clarifies the resource as 'summary call statistics'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from yeastar_list_cdr, so an agent can tell the two list tools apart immediately.

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 second sentence gives direct routing guidance: this tool is for aggregate summaries, while yeastar_list_cdr is for individual call records. This is an explicit when-to-use/alternative pairing rather than leaving the choice to inference.

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