finance__headcount_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits upfront: results are totals only, never individual people, and the scope is exactly one team. It does not cover error handling or data freshness, but for a read-only aggregate tool the main privacy and aggregation behaviors are disclosed.

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 sentences: the first states function and core constraint, the second gives a user-oriented purpose. There is no filler, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no nested objects, and the description covers scope, output nature, and intended use. It lacks an output schema and does not spell out behavior for unknown team names, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter, team, at 100% with a clear description and examples ('platform', 'sre', 'sales-emea'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating 'one team', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Aggregate' and a clear resource: headcount plan for one team, enumerating approved, filled, and open role counts. It also clarifies scope with 'one team' and 'Returns totals only, never individual people.' It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling finance__budget_roles.

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?

The description states a concrete use case: 'Use it to see how many roles a team is budgeted for and how many are still open.' This is clear contextual guidance, but it does not name alternatives like finance__budget_roles or state when not to use the tool, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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