cyberqp_get_customer_accounts_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read (get counts) but doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns zero-count entries, whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles invalid customer IDs. For a simple read tool this is a moderate gap.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify the return shape (e.g., a map of account type to count) or whether counts include only active accounts. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description could have added a bit more context.

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% (the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Customer ID.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: getting counts of account types for a customer. It specifies the resource (customer) and the output (counts per account type). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling cyberqp_get_customer_accounts, but the word 'counts' distinguishes it from the list-style sibling.

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 implies usage context: when you need aggregate counts rather than detailed account lists. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over cyberqp_get_customer_accounts, but the sibling name and the word 'counts' provide reasonable implied guidance.

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