record_aggregate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via ORM but doesn't disclose permission requirements, connection behavior, pagination (limit/offset defaults), whether grouping is mandatory, or what the response contains. For a 7-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, which is structurally good. But it is under-specified for a complex tool rather than appropriately concise, so it earns only a middling score.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably construct domain, groupby, or fields arguments from this definition.

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% across 7 parameters, including required ones like domain, fields, groupby, and connection_id. The description adds no meaning about what these parameters expect (e.g., domain syntax, groupby semantics, aggregate field behavior), so the agent has no documentation for any 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?

The description names a verb ('Read') and a resource ('grouped aggregates') plus the backend (Odoo ORM), so the general purpose is identifiable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from siblings like record_count or record_search, which also read/aggregate Odoo data, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose record_aggregate over record_search, record_count, or record_get. No prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios are stated, so usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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