goat_listings_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of non-observable behavior. It discloses credential-free access ('Credential-free public data') and implies a read-only, live count, which covers auth and side-effect expectations. The remaining gaps—rate limits, caching, and output format—are minor for a public parameterless count endpoint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest supports essential decision-making (sibling limitation, credential status). The second sentence largely restates the first but adds 'whole marketplace' and 'live,' which are valuable nuances. A slightly tightened version could merge the public-data tag more smoothly, but the current length is still well-justified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it defines the semantic return value (a catalog-wide count), recency ('live'), credential needs ('public data'), and why the tool exists in relation to sibling search. An agent has everything necessary to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter-information baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning that the schema alone cannot: it says the count is for the whole marketplace, is not a fee, and is the true catalog size beyond the search ceiling. This is sufficient for a zero-input call.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get GOAT live listing count.' It clearly states scope as 'across its whole marketplace,' which distinguishes this from sibling tools like goat_search and goat_collection that concern narrower results. Even without a title, an agent instantly knows what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by explaining that GET /goat/search's total_results saturates at 10000 and cannot report a total above that ceiling. It names the alternative and the exact limitation that makes this tool the only way to see GOAT's true catalog size. This is precise, actionable selection guidance.

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