bos_order_count_by_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is counts grouped by status, but does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any potential side effects. Since it has no parameters, the disclosure of the return format is minimal.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from slightly more detail about the output structure. It earns a 4 for efficiency without being overly terse.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the response looks like (e.g., an array of status-count pairs). Without this, the agent may not know how to use the returned data. For a simple tool, this is a minor gap, earning a 3.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, but it correctly implies that no filters are needed. Schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 'Get order counts grouped by status' clearly states the action (get), the resource (order counts), and the grouping (by status). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like bos_order_list (which returns order details) or bos_order_search (which returns filtered orders), as it specifically returns aggregated counts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a user needs counts versus individual order data. No explicit context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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