funnels_get_pages_count_by_funnel_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as the return format (a count) or potential edge cases (e.g., handling of missing funnels). It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes no additional value beyond what the annotations already guarantee.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load key information like the return type or scoping, and it reads as a minimal fragment rather than a structured explanation. It earns a middle score for its brevity but lacks substance.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the count includes (e.g., drafts vs. published pages), how it relates to the sibling pages-fetching tool, or any filtering or pagination. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior or output from this description.

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 only 33% (only locationId has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of `name` or `funnelId`, nor does it reiterate the default for locationId. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide any parameter-level meaning.

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 'Fetch count of funnel pages' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (count of funnel pages). It is specific and distinct from the sibling tool `funnels_get_pages_by_funnel_id` which returns pages themselves, although it does not explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is unambiguous given the tool name and description.

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 guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer the context from the sibling names alone, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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