Count matching agents or brokerages by state, city, ZIP, license status, and organization type; searching does not spend record credits.
Count matching agents or brokerages. Searching spends no record credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| filters | No | state, countyFips, city (requires state), zip, mustHave, activeLicense, organization, orgType. See API docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — counting consumes no record credits — but says nothing about the shape of the count result, filter combination behavior, or error cases.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the credit-cost note follows immediately.
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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, cost implications, and the population enum. What's missing is the exact return shape and filter-combination semantics — modest gaps rather than blocking ones.
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 only 50%: the 'filters' object lists its fields (with 'See API docs' as a hand-off) while the required 'kind' parameter has no description. The description only echoes the kind enum ('agents or brokerages') and adds no meaning about how filters combine or what happens if unsupported fields are passed.
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?
A specific verb-plus-resource: 'Count matching agents or brokerages.' It tells the agent what is counted and the two population types. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like 'coverage' or 'preview_records', so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Searching spends no record credits' implies the tool is the free/exploratory option before spending credits on unlock_records, but the agent must infer that comparison. No sibling is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.