group_by_aggregate

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes 'Returns sorted results with optional limit', but does not mention side effects (read-only), authentication needs, or error conditions. Missing key behavioral info for a tool that processes data.

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?

Two sentences: definition, analogy, and usage example. Front-loaded with core functionality. No wasted words.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), description is very brief. Does not explain return format, edge cases (nulls, empty records), or the decimal_places parameter. Incomplete for full understanding.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. Description adds 'Group records by a field and aggregate another field' which aligns with schema. Does not provide additional meaning beyond what schema already offers for each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Group records by a field and aggregate another field per group.' Uses helpful analogies (SQL GROUP BY, Excel pivot) and provides concrete examples (subtotals by supplier, business unit, status). Distinct purpose is evident.

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?

Description suggests when to use ('Use for subtotals...'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools like sumif_records or aggregate_records. Usage context is implied but lacks exclusions.

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