Contar filas de un dataset

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value stands out: it discloses the auth requirement (INDEC_API_TOKEN) and a real behavioral trait, that the result is an exact total computed without transferring row data. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core promise (exact row total without data) is front-loaded ahead of the token requirement. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter count tool whose annotations fully cover safety and whose schema enumerates datasets and operators, the definition supplies the missing auth prerequisite and the no-data-transfer behavior. The only real hole is filter-combination semantics, which matters when the optional filters array is populated.

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 is self-documenting for much of the surface (a 19-value dataset enum, per-op descriptions of eq/neq/like/in/is, and a column note pointing at indec_describe_dataset), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds "opcionalmente filtrado", confirming that filters affect the count, but says nothing about how multiple filter entries combine (AND vs OR) or how the nested filters array is shaped.

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?

"Devuelve el total exacto de filas de un dataset (opcionalmente filtrado) sin traer datos" states a specific verb (count) and resource (rows of a dataset), and the trailing "sin traer datos" separates it functionally from a data-fetching sibling like indec_query_dataset. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 phrase "sin traer datos" hints at the situation where this is preferable to a full query, but the description never says when to use it versus indec_query_dataset or indec_aggregate. There are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the token requirement, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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