search_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens when 'domain' is omitted (implied: count all records of the model), nor whether the count honors record rules/access rights. For a count tool with annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted in other dimensions.

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 simple read-only counting tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the minimum needed to call it correctly is present. Missing is the key behavioral note that omitting 'domain' counts every record in the model, plus any routing hint toward search_records when full rows are 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%, and the schema already documents both 'model' and 'domain' with concrete examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes 'domain' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it; baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('records matching a domain'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling search_records that returns records rather than a tally. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_records, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The use case (avoid fetching full records when only a total is needed) is only inferable from the tool name.

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