aggregate_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Query-time aggregation — nothing is precomputed' implies real-time results. However, it does not disclose other aspects such as read-only nature, performance implications, or output constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the main action and optional modifier. No filler or repetitive information; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with a nested filter object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a general sense of the output (group counts and optional sum) but omits filter semantics and result format details. It is adequate for the core aggregation but lacks completeness for advanced usage.

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?

The description explains the role of group_by ('by a property') and sum ('summing a numeric property'), which complements the schema's enums. But it does not mention the filter parameter at all, leaving that aspect to the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Group Product objects by a property' and explains the counting and optional summing. This uniquely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from similar tools targeting other resources like Customer, Order, or Note.

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 communicates the core use case: query-time aggregation for grouping/counting/summing. It does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with search_product or other aggregate tools, but the resource-specific wording makes when to use it clear.

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