accelo_count_milestones

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 say what is returned (a scalar count?), whether the filters object is free-form or schema-constrained, or how 'search' behaves. For a tool with zero structured behavioral 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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though arguably at the cost of needed 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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped free-form filters object, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent cannot determine filter syntax or the return type from this definition.

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%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely references 'the given filters' but never explains the filters object shape, the additionalProperties:true contract, or what the 'search' parameter matches against.

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 (milestones), which is clearer than the tautological siblings. However it does nothing to differentiate from accelo_list_milestones or accelo_get_milestone, leaving the agent to infer that this returns a number rather than records.

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, no mention of the list/get alternatives, and no indication of when counting is preferable to listing. Usage is only implied by the verb 'count'.

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