aggregate_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the stream-substitution behavior, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any query limitations. The aggregation phrasing implies a safe read, but richer behavioral context is missing.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a critical usage detail. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool has five parameters and no output schema, but the schema descriptions cover all parameters and the description explains the key substitution mechanism. It does not detail return values or error behavior, but for an aggregation query the return shape is largely determined by the user's SQL, so the description plus schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the literal token `stream` in the SQL is replaced with the real stream name, which is essential for correctly constructing both the `sql` and `stream` parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run an aggregation query' and enumerates the supported operations (COUNT, AVG, SUM, GROUP BY). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/query tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for aggregations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_logs or query_metrics. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or direct sibling comparisons, so the guidance is only implicit.

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