get_order_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'counts', but it does not explicitly state that it returns a numeric count or that it has no side effects. This is a minimal but acceptable level of transparency for a simple count tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Counts orders') and adds crucial context about optional filters. Every word carries value with no redundancy.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what it does and the filter types. However, it could explicitly state that it returns a count (number) to be fully complete, but this is implied and acceptable for a tool of this 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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including an example filter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds that filters can be by status or date range, which aligns with the schema example but does not introduce new details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 counts orders, using a specific verb ('counts') and resource ('orders'). It also distinguishes from related tools like get_product_count and get_customer_count by specifying the resource type, and from list_orders by emphasizing counting rather than listing.

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 provides clear context that the tool counts orders and optionally filters by status or date range, which implies when to use it over list_orders. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the threshold for a 5.

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