get_table_record_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns a total record count (an aggregate value), which is not disclosed by the input schema. It does not mention edge cases or performance considerations, but the annotations cover the safety profile sufficiently.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description adequately defines the tool's purpose and return type (total count), and the schema covers parameter details. It could include an example or a note about performance on large tables, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optional filters' aligns with the query parameter but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gets a total record count for a ServiceNow table, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_records or get_record by focusing on aggregate counts rather than record retrieval.

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 for counting records with optional filters, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as query_records or compare_record_counts. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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