accelo_count_affiliations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied but unstated), what happens with invalid filters, rate limits, or what the return value looks like. For a count tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and contains no waste. However, it is arguably too terse given the missing parameter 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a very terse description, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what filters are valid, what the return value is, or how to correctly invoke the tool.

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 both parameters ('search' and 'filters') are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'filters' but provides no information about their format, allowed fields, or how 'search' interacts with 'filters'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 (affiliations) with the filtering scope, distinguishing it from siblings like accelo_list_affiliations and accelo_get_affiliation. It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the list sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this counting tool versus accelo_list_affiliations or how the count is scoped. The description only states the operation without context for selection among alternatives.

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