count_browser_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reported by managed devices,' indicating a specific data source, and implies an aggregation (count). However, it does not detail behavior such as handling of missing data, time ranges, or permission requirements. This is adequate but thin for a tool with no 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second gives a clear use case. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope ('across your organization or a specific Organizational Unit'), which adds context beyond the schema. A brief mention of parameter defaults or the absence of the orgUnitId behavior would make it fully complete, but current coverage is sufficient for a simple count tool.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (orgUnitId and customerId) with 100% coverage. The description adds a small contextual hint by referencing 'a specific Organizational Unit' which aligns with orgUnitId, but it does not meaningfully enhance what the schema already states. 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 function: 'Counts Chrome browser versions reported by managed devices.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence adds the purpose 'auditing and reporting on the distribution of browser versions,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle logs or policies.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use this for auditing and reporting on the distribution of browser versions across your organization or a specific Organizational Unit.' It implies when to use the tool but does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it lacks the 'when not to use' component.

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