accelo_count_prospects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about permissions required, whether the count respects search vs filters precedence, or what the response shape is (a count value). For a read-only query tool this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal 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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at minimum explain filter format (possibly pointing at accelo_list_filters) and confirm the return is a numeric count. Neither is present, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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, but it only vaguely references "filters" and says nothing about the `search` parameter or the expected structure/keys of the free-form `filters` object (additionalProperties: true). The agent has no way to know valid filter syntax from the definition alone.

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 ("prospects") with the scoping condition ("matching the given filters"), which is enough to distinguish it from the list/get/create/update/delete prospect siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name list_prospects as the alternative for retrieving records rather than totals.

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 guidance on when to use counting versus list_prospects, nor any mention of prerequisites, pagination, or cost/rate considerations. The phrase "matching the given filters" hints at filtering but leaves the agent to infer usage conditions.

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