accelo_count_divisions

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 confirms the tool counts rather than lists, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what permission scope it requires, or how the optional filters argument behaves when omitted.

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 no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have used its small budget to document the filters argument.

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 minimal one-parameter count tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is barely adequate. It conveys the core operation, but the opaque filters parameter and the presence of accelo_list_divisions mean an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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% for the single "filters" parameter, which is an unspecified free-form object. The description references "the given filters" but adds no field names, syntax, or examples, so it fails to 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?

The description states a specific verb ("Count") and resource ("divisions"), making the operation unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_divisions or explain why one would count rather than list.

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 "matching the given filters" hints at context but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer accelo_list_divisions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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