get_headcount

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

Discloses that results are based on up to 5000 active records and that computation is client-side due to OData limitations. However, without annotations, missing details on authentication, rate limits, or behavior when limits are exceeded.

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 concise, with the primary action stated in the first sentence. The client-side computation note and limit warning add essential context without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description omits key context for a 6-parameter tool: how to apply filters, use auth parameters, and what happens with large datasets. The limit disclosure is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters described). The description repeats examples that already appear in the group_by parameter description but adds no meaning for filters, auth fields, or data_center. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 headcount grouped by a specific field, with examples like department, company, location, country. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on individual records, analytics, or other aggregations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_employees or get_employee_profile. The note about client-side computation explains a limitation but does not advise on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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