accelo_count_taxes

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. 'Count' implies a read-only aggregate, but the description says nothing about the return value, filter semantics, permissions, or whether the count respects pagination or defaults.

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; it is appropriately short for a simple counting tool, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting necessary detail.

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?

With 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form filter object, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call or know what the result looks like. It should at least sketch the filter shape and confirm the numeric return.

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?

There is one parameter ('filters') with 0% schema description coverage, and the schema itself is an opaque object with additionalProperties=true. The phrase 'the given filters' adds no syntax, key names, or format detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('tax codes') and matches its name, distinguishing it from siblings like accelo_list_taxes and accelo_get_tax. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings in the text.

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?

The only usage signal is 'matching the given filters' — there is no statement of when a count is preferable to accelo_list_taxes, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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