accelo_count_object_budgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether the count respects filters or ignores them, return format, or any rate limits. For a count tool with no annotations, 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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words. However, it may be too terse given the ambiguity around filter semantics.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a free-form filters parameter. The description doesn't explain what the count represents, how filters work, or what the return might look like. For a tool with these structured gaps, the description is insufficient.

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's only one parameter ('filters') which accepts an arbitrary object. The description mentions 'given filters' but provides no filter syntax, available fields, or examples. With low coverage and a free-form object parameter, the description should compensate but does 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?

Clear verb ('Count') and resource ('object budgets') with a stated scope ('matching the given filters'). It sits among many 'count_*' siblings, and the resource name distinguishes it, but there's no explicit differentiation from accelo_list_object_budgets or accelo_get_object_budget beyond the count semantics.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is given. The phrase 'matching the given filters' implies usage but doesn't explain when a count is preferable to a list or how filters should be formed.

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