run_aggregate_query

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

The description adds a URL and the list of aggregate functions but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. The readOnlyHint=false annotation contradicts the expected read-only nature of an aggregate query, and the description does not clarify this inconsistency or mention idempotency, destructive potential, or side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence but includes a URL that may not be essential for agent understanding. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., aggregated data, structure, pagination). It does not. The description also fails to address error handling, rate limits, or the contradiction in readOnlyHint=false. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra value by exemplifying COUNT, SUM, AVG but omits MIN and MAX listed in schema. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the verb ('Run'), the resource ('grouped aggregate query on any table'), and specific aggregate functions (COUNT, SUM, AVG). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like query_records (returns raw records) and trend_query (time-series).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or contrast with sibling tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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