cfpb_complaint_aggregations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state safety. The description adds that results are grouped counts, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits). With annotations present, the description adds some but not extensive context.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives use cases, third lists aggregation fields. No wasted words, key information is front-loaded.

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 is simple; description covers the main aggregation functionality and filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., list of {field_value, count}), which may slightly hinder an agent's understanding of the return value.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description lists possible field values (matching the enum) and gives examples of filters, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get complaint counts grouped by a field' and lists specific aggregation fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cfpb_search_complaints that return individual records.

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 concrete use cases ('ranking companies by complaint volume, identifying top issues, comparing states'), implying when to use aggregation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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