Group By IP

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that results are 'facet counts' and that it is a thin wrapper over field_facets, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, default limits, or the shape/size of the returned facets.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the implementation note trailing. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 5-parameter aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: three parameters are wholly undocumented and there is no output or usage context to fill the gap.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It only gestures at 'query/time range' (query, window), leaving account, ip_field, and facet_size completely undefined in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it produces facet counts keyed by IP for a query/time range. The parenthetical naming field_facets as the underlying implementation is useful, though it doesn't disambiguate from the nearby sibling traffic_by_ip or group_by_path, which sound like the same aggregation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no exclusions. The description never explains how this differs from traffic_by_ip, group_by_path, or group_by_user_agent, leaving the agent to guess which grouping tool to call.

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