count_records

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 return behavior (no rows, only count/percentage) and safety (cheap, safe), but lacks details on permissions or side effects. Overall, it provides sufficient transparency for a read-only query tool.

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 purpose, the second provides usage context and safety. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 an output schema (implied), the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers all three optional parameters, gives a real-world chain scenario, and mentions performance characteristics. The sibling tools context is well integrated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the three parameters (category, intent, keyword) as filters and gives an example with 'intent'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's names, though format constraints are not detailed.

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 clearly states the tool counts records matching filters (category, intent, keyword), returning a number and percentage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like filter_records (which returns rows) and summarize_category, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit example ('how many refund requests?') and explains it is the counting half of a chain, implying when to use it versus filter_records. Also notes it is cheap and safe for large matches, guiding appropriate usage.

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