Organization Event Count

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about daily aggregation and event-type breakdown, but it does not disclose return format, count semantics, or default date-range behavior. This is similar to other read-only tools that add only modest behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the helpful cross-tool pointer is placed second without bloating the description.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the output shape (daily counts, event-type breakdown) and scope, though it omits details like default date ranges or exact response structure. Given the annotations and schema, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats the organizationId lookup hint from the schema but does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get aggregated daily event counts across all sites in an organization.' The 'across all sites' phrasing and the event-type breakdown make the purpose concrete and distinguish it from site-level tools like rybbit_get_site_event_count.

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 description clearly conveys the org-wide scope ('across all sites'), which implies when this tool is appropriate, and provides onboarding guidance via rybbit_list_sites. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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