accelo_count_contacts

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 does not state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor does it describe the return shape (a bare count vs. an envelope), rate limits, or what happens with no matching contacts.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized but arguably too terse for a tool whose schema and annotations are entirely empty.

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 zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry much more. It omits what 'search' does, what the count response looks like, and when this is preferable to listing contacts, leaving material gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description references 'filters' but says nothing about the separate 'search' parameter, its syntax, or how search differs from filters, leaving half the parameters effectively undocumented.

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 (contacts) plus the filtering scope, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling count tools or from accelo_list_contacts, so an agent must still infer which count family member to pick.

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 count tool versus accelo_list_contacts or the other accelo_count_* siblings. There is no mention of required permissions, prerequisites, or conditions that select this over a list-and-count alternative.

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