get_event_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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'aggregate count,' which implies a single numeric result, but omits details about output format, handling of optional filters, timezone assumptions, or potential errors. There is no mention of pagination, limits, or how the count is computed (e.g., unique events vs. all occurrences). This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no wasted text, and it conveys the core operation without verbosity. It could include more detail, but as a concise statement it is appropriately sized for a simple count tool.

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 modest complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete in stating what it does, but it lacks details on the return value (expected to be a number), the effect of the optional 'where' filter, and any edge cases. For an agent to call it correctly, more context about the filter object and output format would improve completeness, though the description is not grossly inadequate.

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 75% (from, to, where have descriptions; event_name does not). The description adds minimal context by implying event_name is the 'specific event', but it does not explain the syntax of the 'where' object or the YYYYMMDD format beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, it adds slight meaning but relies mostly on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 a clear action ('Get'), a specific resource ('aggregate count of a specific event'), and a time boundary ('within a time period'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_profile_count (profiles) and get_realtime_counts (real-time), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. It is precise but could be more explicit in distinguishing itself.

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 get_realtime_counts or get_events. No context is provided about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states the function without any conditional advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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