Database table counts (health check)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of what is counted, but says nothing about cost, latency, or that counts reflect the live index state. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no waste: the first states what is returned, the second states when to use it. The purpose is front-loaded and the examples are compact rather than padding.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what is counted, which substitutes for return-value documentation. It could still note that output shape follows the 'format' parameter, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 single 'format' parameter carries an enum and default, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about the format parameter or how it affects the response, which is the correct baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Returns row counts for all indexed tables', and clarifies scope with concrete examples (sessions, docs, summaries, cross-reference edges). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling wwdc_ingest_status, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a status/health-check tool.

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?

'Use to quickly verify the state of the index' gives a clear, actionable when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions — notably wwdc_ingest_status, which likely answers a related question — so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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