Aggregate cataloged data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful non-obvious behavior, such as timeBucket adding a time_bucket field usable in orderBy, and it clarifies limitations. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination behavior, authorization needs, or whether any side effects exist.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each short sentence earning its place: core purpose, a valuable behavioral detail, limitations, and a required dependency. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters, nested objects, enums, and no output schema or annotations, the description only provides a high-level purpose and a couple of parameter hints. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently construct complex metric/filter/dimension/orderBy requests or understand the result shape.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 10 parameters. It only adds meaningful semantics for timeBucket (creates a time_bucket field for orderBy) and athleteId (obtain from list_athletes). Metrics, dimensions, filters, orderBy, date ranges, and limit remain unexplained, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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 states a clear verb and resource: declarative aggregation over one cataloged dataset. It also distinguishes the tool from broader query/analysis siblings by explicitly excluding joins, arbitrary expressions, and file paths, so an agent can tell it apart from tools like read_series or query_read_only_data.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for declarative aggregation over a single cataloged dataset. It also states exclusions (no joins, arbitrary expressions, file paths) and a prerequisite (athleteId from list_athletes), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', so it just misses a 5.

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