accelo_count_time_externals

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, yet it discloses almost nothing: not that it is read-only, not the return shape, and not how 'the given filters' are applied. 'Matching the given filters' hints at scoping but stops short of real disclosure.

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 economical sentence with no padding, front-loaded on the verb. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.

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 counting tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It neither defines the domain concept nor the filter format the agent must supply.

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% for both 'search' and 'filters', so the schema contributes nothing and the description must compensate. It only says filtering exists and never explains the expected filter keys or what 'search' matches.

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 ('time externals'), so an agent can distinguish it from the list/get/convert siblings. However, it offers no explicit differentiation text and leaves the term 'time externals' unexplained.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as accelo_list_time_externals (for full records) or accelo_get_time_external. The agent must infer that this returns only a count.

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