accelo_count_referrals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the return type (an integer count), whether it is read-only/safe, pagination irrelevance, or error behavior. Only the bare action is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is proportionate for a simple count tool. It is efficient, though borderline terse given the undocumented parameter.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits return format, filter structure, and safety profile. An agent knows what it does but not how to call it precisely or what it gets back.

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%, so the description must explain the lone 'filters' parameter, but it only references it generically with no hint of accepted keys, value types, or shape for a free-form object. It adds essentially nothing beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 (referrals), which cleanly distinguishes it from accelo_list_referrals and accelo_get_referral. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the count-vs-list distinction is inherent in the verb.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of accelo_list_referrals or accelo_get_referral, nor any note on why an agent would want a count rather than the records themselves. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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