getReports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral details. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, that owner_email is ignored for user API keys, whether rate limits apply, or what the response structure looks like.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no fluff. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, missing opportunities to provide useful context in the same small space.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'reports' include, whether filters are supported, what authentication context is needed, or what kind of data is returned. The agent would likely need to call the tool or inspect other docs to proceed safely.

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%: owner_email is described in the schema, including the conditional requirement. The description adds no additional parameter context, but per baseline rules 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate call reports / analytics'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like listCallLogs or getProviderInfo, leaving some ambiguity about what counts as a 'report' versus a log.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The word 'aggregate' hints that it differs from raw call logs, but the agent is left to infer that connection on its own.

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