count_records

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the meaning of include_subspecies and the record_type categories, and 'count' implies a read-only, non-mutating query, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether counts are approximate — lean coverage on a read-only tool with an output schema.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact, with each parameter getting exactly one explanatory line. No template boilerplate or restated field names beyond what is needed.

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 low-complexity, single-taxon counting tool with a declared output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly: every parameter is explained and the domain is named. The remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance against the sibling tools.

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%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it largely does: species accepts scientific or common names with worked examples ('Bos taurus' or 'cattle'), record_type enumerates the three values with 'read_run' glossed as sequencing runs, and include_subspecies is defined as counting subspecies and breeds. Only a fuller gloss on 'sample' and 'assembly' is missing.

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 ('Count records') scoped to a species within a named repository (ENA, EMBL-EBI), which is clear enough to distinguish it from retrieval-oriented siblings like search_samples and get_biosample. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below top marks.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for count_records instead of search_samples, get_biosample, or check_sample_metadata, and no mention of prerequisites or cost tradeoffs of a counting query. The agent must infer the use case purely from the verb.

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