count_workplaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful efficiency context ("cheaper than listing them") but does not state read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or return format for the count.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted material. It immediately conveys the operation and the key efficiency tradeoff.

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 count tool with four optional, fully documented filters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could say more about the returned count or filter behavior, but the core operation is adequately covered.

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 the schema already documents all four filter parameters. The description adds only the general point that these are the same filters as search, without adding syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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: "Count workplaces in the register." It also distinguishes the tool from listing-oriented siblings by saying it uses "the same filters as the search" and is "cheaper than listing them," though it does not explicitly name the sibling search tool.

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 clear usage context: use this when you need a count with search-equivalent filters, and prefer it over listing results because it is cheaper. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool, but the intended choice is clear.

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