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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that safe-read profile while adding useful specifics: the return shape {EntryCount} and the underlying endpoint. No details on auth or rate limits, but for a trivial read that gap is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, return shape, endpoint. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description helpfully discloses the return value ({EntryCount}). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the sibling routing condition is missing.

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 itself documents the 'report' parameter including hash-vs-title formats and a pointer to wufoo_list_reports. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Count the entries in a report', which reads distinct from sibling wufoo_list_report_entries. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, but the count-vs-list distinction is unambiguous from the name and text.

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 the tool's nature (count when you only need a number), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to the alternative wufoo_list_report_entries when full entry data is required.

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