aggregate_simple

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs 'simplified aggregation queries' but doesn't describe what that means operationally - whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, what happens on errors, or what the output format looks like. The examples help but don't constitute comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding value. The only minor issue is the Chinese language content might be less accessible to some agents, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, performance characteristics, or how it differs from the 'aggregate' sibling tool. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides the complete enum list for agg_type, clarifies that 'size' only applies to 'terms' aggregation, and gives concrete examples showing how parameters work together.

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 performs 'simplified aggregation queries' (verb+resource), which distinguishes it from other search/query tools like 'search' or 'count'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'aggregate' tool, which appears to be a more complex version.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aggregate', 'search', or 'count'. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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