togoid_countId

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it's a lightweight pre-check, does not return mapped IDs, only counts. It also notes that some source IDs may map to multiple targets (e.g., genes to multiple proteins). No destructive actions or contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns, example) and front-loaded key info. It is somewhat lengthy but every part adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall 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, the presence of an output schema (noted in context), and the detailed description, the tool definition is complete. It explains return values (dictionary with source/target counts) and provides an example, leaving no gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to each parameter: explains 'source' and 'target' as database keys with examples, and 'ids' as accepting both list and comma-separated string with examples. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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: 'Check how many of your IDs can be converted before doing bulk conversion.' It specifies a specific verb ('check count') and resource ('IDs for conversion'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'togoid_convertId' which actually performs conversions.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool: to verify ID format, estimate result size, and check conversion routes. It implicitly indicates when not to use it (when actual mappings are needed, use convertId). This provides clear guidance with alternatives.

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