accelo_count_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say what the count covers, whether multiple filters are ANDed, how search interacts with filters, or what the form of the returned count is. 'Matching the given filters' is the only behavioral hint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than ideal brevity.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine filter syntax, the effect of search, or what the returned count represents from this definition alone.

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 are two parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filters' generically but says nothing about the 'search' parameter or any filter key/format syntax, leaving the agent with no more information than the parameter names already give.

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') plus resource ('requests') and scopes it to filters, which cleanly distinguishes it from accelo_list_requests and accelo_get_request. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other count_* siblings, but the resource noun carries that job.

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 count versus when to call accelo_list_requests, no mention of whether filters are required, and no note that a bare call returns a total. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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