accelo_count_payments

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 says nothing about permissions, rate limits, what 'filters' accepts, or what the count returns (an integer? an object?). For a tool whose behavior is entirely undisclosed, 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately sized, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented free-form parameter, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what filters to pass or what the return value looks like.

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 the single parameter 'filters' is typed only as a free-form object with no description. The description ('matching the given filters') adds nothing about the shape, keys, or accepted values of the filters object, leaving the parameter completely 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (Count) and resource (payments) with a scoping constraint (matching the given filters). It matches the naming pattern of many sibling count_* tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from accelo_list_payments or accelo_get_payment.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Count' – an agent can infer this is for getting a total rather than a list. However, the description doesn't state when to prefer this over accelo_list_payments or how it relates to other count tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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