Count Issues

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already indicates the tool does not mutate state. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond this. It doesn't mention performance implications, return format (though output schema exists), or any constraints. Given the read-only annotation, a score of 3 is baseline; the description doesn't contradict 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No waste. However, it could arguably be expanded with a note about performance or alternative tools, but as is, it is clean and efficient.

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 has a single parameter with comprehensive schema documentation, a simple output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate. The context signals indicate high schema coverage and no nested objects. The description suffices for understanding the tool's basic function, and the schema covers the query syntax. It doesn't need to explain return values since output schema exists.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% per context signals, and the query parameter's description in the schema is extremely detailed, covering syntax, operators, functions, and examples. The tool description itself does not add content beyond 'matching a query,' but the schema already carries the burden. 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 purpose: 'Get the count of Yandex Tracker issues matching a query.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (issues), and the scope (count, matching a query). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'issues_find' (which likely returns issues) and 'issue_get' (single issue), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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: it is used to get a count of issues based on a query. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'issues_find' (e.g., when only a count is needed, not a list). The query parameter has extensive guidance, but the tool-level description lacks explicit context on when to prefer it.

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