cfpb_complaint_aggregations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' verb is consistent. It adds value by listing aggregation fields and use cases, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or how optional filters interact with grouping.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, use cases, and allowed aggregation fields. Each sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, common grouping fields, and example use cases. Since no output schema is present, the return format is only implied ('counts grouped by a field'), but this is likely sufficient for this aggregation tool. It could mention optional filtering parameters or response structure for full completeness, but is not critically lacking.

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% with every parameter having a description and the 'field' parameter having an enum. The description repeats the aggregation fields and adds use-case context, but does not provide additional parameter syntax or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Get complaint counts grouped by a field' – a specific verb and resource. It lists common grouping fields and example use cases, clearly distinguishing this aggregation tool from sibling CFPB tools like cfpb_complaint_detail or cfpb_complaint_trends.

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 clear use cases: 'Useful for ranking companies by complaint volume, identifying top issues, or comparing states.' It gives strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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