get_transactions_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only count operation, but it does not mention the return format (e.g., a plain integer or an object with a count field), any limitations on counting, or potential error conditions. The description adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 of eight words, front-loaded, with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates the core function.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately states the purpose. However, it lacks guidance on choosing this tool over similar ones and does not clarify the response shape, which would help the agent use the tool more confidently. Given the low complexity, the description is workable but not fully complete.

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%, and the 'filter' parameter is well-documented with an OData filter expression example. The tool description merely says 'optional filtering' without adding new information, so the schema already does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the total count of transactions with optional filtering' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (transactions count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_transactions (which lists transactions) and get_transaction (singular). It also signals the optional filtering capability.

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 implies usage for counting transactions rather than listing them, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_transactions or get_message_count. There are no clear exclusions or specific scenarios mentioned.

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