statsfm_friend_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, and it discloses none. It does not say what the output looks like, what happens for an unknown user_id, whether response_format changes the shape of the result, or whether this is a safe read-only operation.

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 fragment with zero padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It also reads as a question fragment ('How many friends...') rather than a declarative tool purpose, so the structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves out return behavior, error semantics, and differentiation from statsfm_friends, so an agent cannot fully predict the call flow without additional trial or external knowledge.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by clarifying that the result is a friend count for the given user, but it does not elaborate on either parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 states the tool's resource (a stats.fm user's friend count) and what it computes, so an agent can tell it returns a count rather than a list. The name and description together differentiate it from the sibling statsfm_friends, but the description itself is a question-like fragment with no explicit verb or mention of the alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 call this tool versus the many sibling statsfm tools (e.g., statsfm_friends, statsfm_resolve_user, other statsfm_stats tools). No context for selection is provided other than what the name implies.

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