get_profile_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 that it returns a count of user profiles, without clarifying whether this is a distinct count, an approximation, or real-time data. It also does not mention any rate limits, permissions, or the exact output format (e.g., a plain number vs. an object). This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get count'). There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. For a simple count tool, this level of brevity is acceptable, though a short example or note on expected output could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has three required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a number, an object with a count field), whether the count is distinct profiles or total events, or any dependencies (e.g., events must have been uploaded via upload_events). The lack of these details could lead to misapplication or confusion, especially in the context of many sibling tools.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters (from and to have descriptions, event_name does not). The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema: it just repeats 'specific event' without explaining what event_name should be or providing format details. It does not compensate for the missing schema description of event_name, and it does not clarify the date format beyond what is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the action (get count) and the resource (user profiles that performed a specific event). It implies uniqueness of profiles rather than events, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_event_count. However, it does not explicitly mention the time range or how it differs from similar count tools, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing on its own.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as get_event_count, get_events, or get_profiles. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. For a tool with a large sibling set, this is a significant gap.

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