accelo_count_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the count respects user permissions, how filters are interpreted, or what happens when filters is null/omitted, which for a filter-driven query tool is a meaningful 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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the core operation front-loaded. It is well sized, though its brevity is partly a result of under-specification rather than economy of detail.

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 count tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented free-form filter object, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently. At minimum the filter format and the null-filters behavior should be stated.

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 0% and the single 'filters' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties true. The description says 'matching the given filters' but gives no filter syntax, supported keys, or default behavior when filters is null, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Count) and resource (addresses), so the agent knows the operation at a glance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_addresses, which returns records rather than a tally, so differentiation is left to the naming convention.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over accelo_list_addresses when only a total is needed, and no prerequisites or pagination caveats are mentioned. Only the tool name implies the intended use case.

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