Grouped Aggregate Query

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it 'returns per-group statistics' and works on 'any' table, reinforcing but not substantially expanding beyond annotation-driven expectations. It omits details like default behavior if no aggregate functions are specified.

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 two tight sentences plus a list of examples. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core use case and examples. It lacks details on return format and edge cases (e.g., behavior when no aggregate function is selected), but annotations and rich schema descriptions fill many gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with all 11 parameters having descriptions. The description adds illustrative examples but does not explain parameters beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema takes the primary burden.

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 action ('Run aggregate functions'), the resource ('any ServiceNow table'), and the distinguishing grouping behavior ('grouped by a field'), which separates it from sibling tools like aggregate_query and count_records. The examples further illustrate its purpose.

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 phrase 'ideal for breakdowns and dashboards' and concrete examples ('count of incidents grouped by priority') give clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like aggregate_query or define when grouping is unnecessary.

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