therapyportal_get_document_counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail about what is counted (awaiting completion vs. awaiting practice approval), which is more than the annotations convey. It says nothing about freshness/staleness of counts or how clients with zero documents appear.

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 short sentences that front-load the per-client aggregation and then the category split. Dense but efficient; the parenthetical-use sentence earns its place by conveying intent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must imply the return shape — and it does, indicating per-client records with three breakdown categories. It stops short of describing the actual fields (client id/name, per-category numbers) or ordering, which would fully close the gap.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema documents the compact/full/raw enum at 100% coverage with per-value explanations. The description contributes nothing about the view parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (TherapyPortal document counts) and the exact bucketing: pending completion, completed-awaiting-approval, split into clinical/administrative/billing. This is clearly an aggregation, distinguishable in kind from list_documents or list_forms, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 closing phrase "a quick 'do I owe the therapist any forms?' check" implies the intended scenario, which is useful context. But it never says when to prefer this over therapyportal_list_documents or therapyportal_list_forms, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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