aggregate_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait ('Query-time aggregation — nothing is precomputed'), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response format, mention performance considerations, or note any required permissions. This gives some transparency but not enough for a 4.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('Group Order objects by a property'), and the second sentence adds a distinct behavioral note about query-time computation. Every word earns its place, with no 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 tool has three parameters including a nested filter object and no output schema. The description covers the core grouping and summing behavior but gives no guidance on how to use the filter or what the result structure looks like. While adequate for a basic sense of the tool, it leaves gaps for an agent aiming to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the conceptual meaning of grouping and summing, but it omits the 'filter' parameter entirely and does not enumerate which property values are valid for group_by beyond what the schema enums already provide. This is only partial compensation for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Group') and resource ('Order objects'), clearly distinguishing this aggregation tool from sibling search/get tools. It further specifies the output behavior (counting each group, optionally summing a numeric property), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states this is a query-time aggregation and that nothing is precomputed, implying it should be used when live aggregated data is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like search_order or get_order) or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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