get_label_summary_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the report (e.g., real-time vs historical). The description is completely silent on these aspects.

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 (5 words), which is good for brevity, but it lacks structure and critical information. It is not front-loaded with the most important details. Additionally, being in Vietnamese may cause issues for English-speaking agents.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should provide sufficient context about what the report contains. It does not describe the output format, granularity, or any filtering options. This is inadequate for a reporting tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description should explain what the report covers (e.g., time range, labels included). It only mentions 'label' and 'Type' without elaborating on what types exist or how labels are used. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the report's scope.

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 'Báo cáo hội thoại theo nhãn (Type)' translates to 'Conversation report by label (Type)', which vaguely indicates a report about conversations grouped by label. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., generate, retrieve, export). The purpose is ambiguous compared to sibling tools that have more descriptive names.

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 the many sibling reporting tools like 'get_account_reporting_events' or 'list_all_conversation_statistics'. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it is provided.

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