search_aggregate

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the purpose with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but that is not confirmed.

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 extremely concise (6 words) but under-specified. It lacks critical details about parameters and behavior. Conciseness is not achieved at the expense of completeness; here the description is too sparse to be useful.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain aggregation, facets, or return format. The agent cannot infer proper usage or expected output.

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%, and the description adds no information about any of the 5 parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names like 'q', 'from_', 'size', and 'facets', which are underdefined (e.g., 'facets' format). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get aggregated search results with facets' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (aggregated search results with facets). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_entities' or 'suggest_entities' by emphasizing aggregation and facets. However, 'aggregated' could be more specific, so it's not a perfect 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like search_entities or suggest_entities, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent receives no guidance on selection.

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