call_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It discloses a key data integrity guarantee (duration fields carry source labels, CDR and TaskRouter numbers are never mixed) and states return metrics. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or potential limitations such as data range sizes, though 'aggregate' and 'returns' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 succinct sentences with critical information front-loaded: the aggregation verb, dimensions, date range, and return metrics, followed by an important caveat. Every clause adds value with no 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 purpose, acceptable group_by values, date range, high-level return metrics, and a data-source caveat. Given the schema fully documents parameters and no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient high-level context, though it could specify return structure or timezone handling more explicitly.

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 description adds limited new parameter information. It does reinforce the meaning of group_by by naming day, agent, or queue, and references date range which maps to start_date/end_date, but the schema already explains these. No additional syntax or format details beyond schema are provided.

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 identifies the tool as aggregating call data by day, agent, or queue over a date range, with specific output metrics (counts, talk time, abandonment rate). This verb+resource+scope is distinct from sibling tools like search_calls and get_call, which focus on individual call retrieval.

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 conveys a clear use case: when aggregate or summary metrics are needed rather than individual call details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the emphasis on aggregation and group-by options implies when this tool is appropriate, making the context clear but not exhaustive.

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