salesforce_aggregate_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool handles GROUP BY queries, aggregate functions, HAVING clauses, and date/time grouping. It includes critical rules about field inclusion requirements, filtering order (WHERE vs HAVING), ORDER BY limitations, and OFFSET unsupported. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, which are relevant for a query tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage note, capabilities list, examples, and important rules. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 7 parameters. While comprehensive, some sentences in the rules section could be more concise (e.g., the ORDER BY rule is slightly redundant with schema descriptions).

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context: purpose, usage guidelines, capabilities, examples, and critical rules. It compensates well for the lack of annotations and output schema. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of grouped results) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a query tool.

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%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds value through examples that illustrate how parameters work together (e.g., showing selectFields with aggregate functions and aliases, groupByFields matching non-aggregate fields, havingClause usage). However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions beyond what the schema descriptions imply, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute SOQL queries with GROUP BY, aggregate functions, and statistical analysis.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('SOQL queries'), and scope ('GROUP BY, aggregate functions, statistical analysis'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'salesforce_query_records' for regular queries, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use this tool for queries that summarize and group data rather than returning individual records' and 'For regular queries without GROUP BY or aggregates, use salesforce_query_records instead.' It clearly defines the context (summarize/group data) and names the specific alternative tool.

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