get_appointment_count_by_status_for_carrier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it returns a count by status for the current carrier. It fails to disclose what 'current carrier' means, whether authentication is needed, if it's a simple query, or what status values are involved.

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 sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary, making it highly concise.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the time range for the count, how 'current carrier' is determined, or the list of statuses returned. An agent would have to infer too much.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds context that the count is 'by status' and 'for current carrier', which is sufficient despite no parameters to explain.

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 'Appointment count by status for current carrier' clearly indicates the tool returns counts grouped by appointment status for the active carrier, distinguishing it from similar tools like 'get_appointment_count_for_carrier' which likely gives total counts. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' but the name provides that.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'get_appointment_count_for_carrier' or 'get_appointment_volume_by_carrier'. The description does not mention any context or alternatives.

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