get_outgoing_messages_count

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states the core function without disclosing any behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a reporting tool, it is minimal.

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 phrase, no wasted words. However, it is not a complete sentence and could be slightly more structured (e.g., 'Retrieves the count of outgoing messages grouped by the specified entity').

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description lacks information about the response format (e.g., object with counts per entity). Among many similar reporting tools, more context about the data structure and filtering is needed.

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% (the only parameter 'group_by' is fully described with enum). The description adds the term 'entity' which loosely maps to the parameter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 retrieves outgoing messages count grouped by entity. The verb 'Get' and resource 'outgoing messages count' are specific. However, among many sibling reporting tools like 'get_channel_summary_report' or 'list_all_conversation_statistics', it does not differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many reporting siblings, an agent needs context on what distinguishes this endpoint (e.g., it is a count aggregated by a specific entity, not a detailed breakdown).

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