EstimateDocumentCount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the method is 'fast' and 'approximate,' which helps set expectations about performance and accuracy. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., error margins, refresh rates, or permissions required), leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits ('fast, approximate'). It's front-loaded with essential information and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (estimation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers purpose and method but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'collectionName' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Estimate the number of documents in a collection using a fast, approximate count method.' It specifies the verb ('estimate'), resource ('number of documents in a collection'), and method ('fast, approximate count'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'ListRecords' or 'GetCollections' that might provide exact counts or different functionality.

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 context by mentioning 'fast, approximate count method,' suggesting this tool is for quick estimates rather than precise counts. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'ListRecords' for exact counts) or any exclusions. The usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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