saas_alerts_events_count

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating it counts matches without retrieving full records, which informs the agent about the tool's lightweight nature. It does not add operational details like limits or timezone handling, but the annotations lower the burden.

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, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Count security events') and contains no filler or redundant content.

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 counting tool with five optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary purpose and a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., an integer count), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only generically references 'the given filters' and adds no parameter-specific semantics, earning the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('security events'), and adds the scope-limiting phrase 'matching the given filters' plus 'without fetching full records,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling query tools like saas_alerts_events_query and saas_alerts_events_scroll.

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 phrase 'without fetching full records' strongly implies this tool is for when only a count is needed, not detailed event data. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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