whodb_platform_ontology_reference_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds the pre-removal intent but does not describe what the counts look like, whether results are scoped/limited, or any caveats.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and following with the workspace targeting note. No filler; each sentence carries information, though the second sentence partially duplicates schema text.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the shape of the returned counts (per-category breakdown vs. total) or any truncation/pagination behavior. For a counting/dependency analysis tool this is a modest gap, but annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the burden.

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 id, fields, and the nested workspace object thoroughly. The description's mention of workspace {host, org, project} 'for per-call targeting without changing defaults' largely restates what the schema's workspace description already says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 verb (Count) and an enumerated resource set (links, apps, functions, transforms, behaviors depending on one ontology reference), with the added framing of 'before removing it'. It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling impact tools like whodb_platform_deletion_impact or whodb_platform_change_impact.

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 phrase 'before removing it' implies a pre-deletion safety-check context, which gives the agent a usage cue. However, no alternative tools are named, and there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to the similar change/deletion impact siblings.

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