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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the operation is a count and that results can optionally be constrained by tag, but it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or whether the count respects any other filters.

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 core meaning is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a short endpoint reference. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter count tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the return concept ('Total number') even without an output schema, though it could clarify how counts relate to search/list alternatives.

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%, and the schema already defines the resource enum values and the tag_name filter. The description repeats both parameters at a high level without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns the total number of people, companies, deals, or projects, with an optional tag filter. This clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings that return record collections rather than counts.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Total number' and the optional tag filter, but the description never states when to use this instead of list_* or search_* tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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