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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. Beyond that the description adds only the raw endpoint path (GET /admin/orders/count.json) and discloses nothing about default filter behavior, auth, rate limits, or response shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose; nothing is padded. The endpoint path is the only arguably redundant element, though it aids API-literate callers.

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 7-parameter, read-only count tool with no output schema, the agent still has to infer the return value (an integer vs. an object with a count field) and how filters combine. The rich schema covers filter semantics, but the description does not close the output-shape gap.

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%, including valuable default semantics (status defaults to open, financial_status defaults to authorized/pending/paid) and ISO 8601 formats. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 operation (count) on a specific resource (orders) subject to filters, which lets an agent separate it from sapo_list_orders. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a 'number of orders' tool is self-evidently for totals where fetching records would be wasteful. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no reference to sapo_list_orders as the alternative.

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