my_report_status_counts

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful scope ('hunter connecté' = current hunter's reports) and the aggregation by status, but it does not disclose the exact output shape or any edge cases. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single short French sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, scope, and grouping dimension, making every word meaningful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only count tool, the description covers the essential information: scope (connected hunter), resource (reports), and grouping (by status). Since there is no output schema, an explicit return-shape note would have been slightly better, but the semantics are simple enough for an agent to infer.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description imposes no parameter expectations. Nothing is missing here.

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 uses a clear verb ('Compte' = counts) with a specific resource ('rapports du hunter connecté') and a grouping dimension ('par statut'). It clearly conveys aggregation by status rather than listing, which distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_my_reports, search_my_reports, or my_hunter_dashboard. The only implied usage is 'count reports by status,' and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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