get_realtime_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'real-time' and 'live data', but does not reveal potential rate limits, caching behavior, latency, or whether the call is expensive. It is a simple read operation, but the sparse description lacks transparency about any non-obvious traits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (real-time counts) and avoids unnecessary verbosity. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but omits several contextual details. It does not explain the return format, whether the count is an integer, or any specifics about event name conventions. It also lacks usage guidance that would help an agent decide when to invoke it. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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% for the single parameter 'event', which has its own clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves real-time counts of users performing an event, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'real-time counts'. It implicitly distinguishes from get_event_count via the 'real-time' and 'live' wording, but does not explicitly differentiate. Overall a clear purpose, but could be more explicit about what makes it different from similar count tools.

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 like get_event_count or get_trends. It does not state that this is for live data and historical counts should use another tool. The description gives no context on selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.

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