conduyt_call_performance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral constraint ('Spans clamp to 366 days'), the default when dates are omitted, and that a `definition` object accompanies the result. It omits permission/auth requirements, whether results are paginated or row-limited, and how heavy the response can be for a 366-day window across five breakdown dimensions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the defining scope ('every call in the window, whatever carried it') followed by the metric/dimension inventory; the 366-day clamp and `definition` return are stated compactly at the end. The dense metric list is information the agent needs to judge relevance, not filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back by enumerating the metrics and noting the `definition` field. For a five-parameter, multi-dimension analytics tool the coverage is strong; only response shape/size and auth expectations are left unaddressed.

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 already 80%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: it maps 'transport' values to real systems (in-app dialer over Twilio, click-to-call Twilio, Project Blue), clarifies the direction split, and pins day/hour bucketing to the account's timezone. It adds nothing further on `userId` or the ISO date formats beyond what the schema states.

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 the resource precisely ('Unified call report: every call in the window') and scopes it across all transports, then enumerates the exact metrics and breakdown dimensions returned. A reader knows exactly what this produces, though it never names the sibling it competes with (e.g., conduyt_list_calls for individual call records or conduyt_agent_performance_report).

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?

Implicit guidance comes from 'with the dialer analytics' definitions' and the metric list, which signals this is the aggregated analytics view. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of which sibling to pick when the agent wants raw calls (conduyt_list_calls) or per-agent breakdowns (conduyt_agent_performance_report).

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