wb_questions_count_period

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior—count questions over a period with an optional isAnswered filter—but does not clarify period boundary inclusiveness, defaults when parameters are omitted, the response shape, or how the boolean filter maps to answered/unanswered.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan. The Russian parenthetical adds minor redundancy by repeating the same information as the English phrase, but it does not significantly hurt readability.

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 simple count endpoint with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys the operation, the time-window inputs, and a filter. It does not explain defaults, boundary handling, or the response format, which an agent would need for fully reliable invocation.

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%, and the description adds some meaning by indicating that the period is expressed via Unix timestamps and that is_answered acts as a filter. Still, it leaves date_to's semantics implicit and does not explain true/false/omitted behavior for the boolean.

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 names the operation ('count'), the resource ('questions'), and the scope ('for a period'), and also mentions the isAnswered filter. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wb_questions_count (overall count) and wb_feedbacks_count_period (feedback count).

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 phrase 'for a period' implies the tool is meant for period-scoped question counts, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wb_questions_count or wb_questions_list, nor does it mention exclusions.

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