read_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the grouped output looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description. However, for a data aggregation tool with multiple parameters and no behavioral annotations, the description should provide more context on usage and parameter meanings to be fully complete.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'grouped/aggregated data' which hints at the purpose of 'groupby' and 'fields', but doesn't explain any parameters in detail—such as what 'model' refers to, how 'domain' filters data, or what 'orderby' does. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the verb ('Read') and resource ('grouped/aggregated data from an Odoo model'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this as a read operation with aggregation/grouping, which differentiates it from simple read operations like 'get_record' or 'search_read' among siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'search_read' or 'get_sales_summary'.

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. It doesn't mention when this grouped/aggregated read is preferred over other read operations like 'search_read' or 'get_record', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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