readiness

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the count is measured now and by naming the status categories that will be included.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the first defines the count and categories, and the second supplies the intended user question.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It could specify the exact response shape, but it already tells the agent what is counted and which categories are reported.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool 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 states a specific verb and resource: it counts Fieldkit's tools and breaks the total into verified, tested, carded, and gathered categories. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: answer 'how many tools do I have.' That is clear guidance for selection, but there are no stated exclusions or named alternatives, so it lands just short of the top score.

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