call_summary

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden. It discloses the risk of paginating the entire account history without a window and implies the tool is read-only via 'summarize' and 'returns counts'. Missing explicit mention of auth requirements or side effects, but these are negligible for a summary 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a note, each sentence earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return values, use case, and a critical behavioral note. No superfluous content.

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 5 parameters, zero schema description coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the date window constraint and the tool's role as a summary. However, it omits explanation of account_id and company_id parameters, which could cause confusion in multi-account contexts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'days' and 'start_date' and their constraint, but does not mention 'account_id', 'company_id', or 'end_date'. This leaves 3 out of 5 parameters undocumented; baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds partial guidance.

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 states 'Summarize calls over a date window' and enumerates the returned aggregates (total, answered/missed, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_calls that return individual call records.

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 positions the tool for 'weekly/monthly rollups without pulling every call into context' and warns about the requirement for a time window (days>=1 or start_date). Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with alternatives (e.g., 'for individual call details, use list_calls').

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