getTableAggregation

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by specifying the required scope ('tables:read') and labeling the operation as '[READ-ONLY]', which informs the agent about authentication needs and safety. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, preventing a score of 5.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with three key pieces of information in two sentences: the core purpose, the corresponding API endpoint, and the required scope with a read-only label. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (simple lookup with two parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, endpoint mapping, and authentication scope. However, it lacks details on the return value format or potential errors, which could enhance completeness for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('tableId' and 'aggregationId'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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: 'Looks up a table aggregation for a Tulip Table by id.' It specifies the verb ('looks up'), resource ('table aggregation'), and identifier mechanism ('by id'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getTable' or 'listTableAggregations', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 some usage context by mentioning the required scope ('tables:read') and labeling it as '[READ-ONLY]', which implies it's safe for retrieval operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listTableAggregations' or 'runTableAggregation', leaving usage guidelines implied rather than explicit.

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