openpanel_get_event_count

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Fails to specify return format (integer vs object), whether this is read-only, behavioral constraints like rate limits, or the meaning of the UNIFIED tag. Only behavioral hint is the optional project_id note.

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 sentences, appropriately brief. However, front-loaded '[UNIFIED]' tag consumes space without adding agent-usable context. Second sentence structure is clear but could prioritize parameter semantics over environment configuration.

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?

Critical gaps remain: no output schema exists yet return format is unexplained; 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage leave the tool under-documented despite sibling complexity. Description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions adequately.

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 0%, requiring description compensation. Only project_id receives semantic explanation (optional via environment). Parameters site, event, and date_range are completely undocumented despite schema providing no descriptions. Date_range default of '30d' in schema is not explained in description.

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?

States clear verb 'Get' and resource 'total event count' with 'optional filters' modifier. Distinguishes from sibling event tools like openpanel_track_event (create) and openpanel_export_events (export) by specifying aggregation/counting purpose. UNIFIED prefix is jargon but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

Provides specific prerequisite guidance that project_id is optional if environment-configured. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like openpanel_export_events or openpanel_get_profile_events, and doesn't clarify filter combinations.

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