get_appointment_count_for_carrier

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says nothing about side effects, read-only nature, output format, or prerequisites. For a tool that likely performs a read operation, the lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely short (four words) but under-specified. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal value; conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the type of count returned, limiting the agent's ability to use the output 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'Carrier ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but according to rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 per carrier' indicates it returns a count per carrier, but it is vague regarding what appointments are counted (e.g., all, confirmed, cancelled). It distinguishes from tools like 'get_appointment_count_for_docks' but not from 'get_appointment_count_by_status_for_carrier' which adds status filtering.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not specify that it counts all appointments regardless of status, while 'get_appointment_count_by_status_for_carrier' filters by status, leaving the agent without decision support.

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