aggregate_table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the input scope; it does not mention return format, pagination, or side effects, though none are expected for a read-only aggregation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the one-line description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to specify metrics, filters, grouping, or handle worksheet versus table selection, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no information about metrics, filters, group_by, sort, or row_mode. The mention of 'worksheet-shaped data or native Excel table' hints at sheet_name/table_name, but the untyped metrics and filters objects remain entirely unexplained.

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 ('Compute') and resource ('worksheet-shaped data or a native Excel table'), clearly indicating the tool performs grouped aggregations. It distinguishes from siblings like query_table and read_excel_as_table by focusing on metric computation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_aggregate_workbooks or query_table. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be better suited.

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