accelo_count_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state the return shape, whether filters are translated to a query, pagination, empty-result behavior, or auth needs. 'Count matching the given filters' is the bare minimum.

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, front-loaded and free of waste. Concise but perhaps too terse given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema. A count tool's whole value proposition rests on the filter semantics, which are entirely undisclosed. The definition is incomplete for how a caller would actually use it.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description names neither parameter's semantics. 'search' and 'filters' are undocumented in schema and description, leaving the agent to guess the filter syntax and what search does. The description adds nothing beyond the bare existence of filtering.

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?

Specific verb 'count' and resource 'quotes', clearly distinguishing it from accelo_list_quotes and accelo_get_quote among many siblings. It doesn't repeat the name redundantly or leave purpose ambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus accelo_list_quotes or accelo_get_quote. With an enormous sibling list including accelo_list_quotes and accelo_count_activities, guidance on selecting count over list would be valuable and is absent.

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