accelo_count_invoice_line_items

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 discloses the Beta status but says nothing about return format, pagination (irrelevant for count), required permissions, or how the filter object is structured. For a count operation with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, though the 'Beta' suffix adds little for an agent.

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?

Given zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the filter parameter format or what the count result represents, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 there are 2 parameters (search, filters). The description doesn't explain what 'search' covers or the expected format/keys of the 'filters' object. Since the schema has no property descriptions, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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?

Statement of a specific verb (Count) and resource (invoice line items) with the filtering scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool accelo_list_invoice_line_items, though it does not name it explicitly.

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 word 'Count' implies usage for getting totals rather than listing items, which is a natural distinction from accelo_list_invoice_line_items. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and the 'Beta' tag is unexplained.

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