how_many_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral info: it counts only active customers and provides a status breakdown, which is not obvious from the tool name alone. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with example questions, and immediately states the core behavior. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 aggregation tool with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It covers the what (count of active customers), the how (breakdown by status), and implies the result format. Nothing important is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, which gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters since there are none; the schema is already complete at 100% coverage. No additional semantic explanation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Counts') and names the resource ('active GorillaDesk customers') plus the breakdown by status. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_customers or get_customer, which list or retrieve individual records rather than an aggregate count.

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 when to use this tool: when a user asks for a customer count or total, not for individual customer details. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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