get_table_record_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a lightweight count operation versus a resource-intensive query. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (counting records with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output format information. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more contextual information would be beneficial for proper tool selection.

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 both parameters ('table' and 'query') adequately. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional filters' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get total record count for a ServiceNow table with optional filters'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('record count'), and scope ('ServiceNow table'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_record_counts' or 'query_records', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't clarify when to use this versus alternatives like 'query_records' for detailed data retrieval or 'compare_record_counts' for comparative analysis. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are provided.

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