get_document_status_counts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates non-mutating aggregation and a performance trait ('fast, low-context'), which is useful behavior beyond the schema. It does not list every possible status or zero-count behavior, but the output schema supplies the return detail.

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 focused sentences: the first states exactly what the tool returns, the second adds routing context. Every clause earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, count-only endpoint with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, why it is preferable, and which sibling to choose instead. There are no missing prerequisites or failure modes that would be expected at this complexity level.

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 takes no parameters, and the schema has no properties, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description needs to add no parameter-level meaning because there is nothing to configure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets counts of documents grouped by processing status. It also explicitly positions itself against list_documents, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: prefer this tool when only counts are needed, and names list_documents as the alternative for when more detail is required. This is direct routing guidance.

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