Field Facets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call returns terms and counts, but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, permissions, default time window, or whether the aggregation is scoped by query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though borderline too terse given the amount of undocumented behavior it is expected to cover.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is substantially incomplete. An agent cannot determine the time-window defaults, the facet_size behavior, or how query filters the facet result from this text alone.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies that a field name goes into the URL path. The meaning and interaction of from/until defaults, query, account, and facet_size (1-300 cap) are left entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb+resource ('return terms and counts for a specific field') rather than restating the name, so an agent can tell it is a faceting/aggregation call. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling list_fields, which an agent could easily confuse for the same territory.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_fields, raw_api_call, or the group_by_* siblings. The only implicit signal is the endpoint path embedded in the text, which is not actionable routing guidance.

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