sql_aggregate

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or if special permissions are required. The description merely restates the tool's purpose without adding any transparency beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary padding. It efficiently lists the supported functions and gives a clear overview of the tool's core purpose.

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?

Despite having a detailed schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with five parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the return format, the effect of grouping, or when to prefer this over sql_aggregate_enhanced. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves significant contextual gaps.

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 100% as all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the function names but does not clarify parameter interactions like required columns for sum/avg or the optional group_by behavior.

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 tool's action and resource: 'Execute SQL aggregate functions (COUNT, SUM, AVG, MIN, MAX)'. This identifies the specific purpose without ambiguity. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as sql_aggregate_enhanced or db_count, which also perform aggregation, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sql_aggregate_enhanced or db_count. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred or what scenarios it is not suitable for.

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