Get Url Count

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but this is a pure, side-effect-free counting function where little disclosure is required. It does reveal the output shape ({"count": n}), though it says nothing about edge cases such as what syntactic forms qualify as an http(s) URL.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The return-value sentence is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief enough not to hurt.

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 trivial one-parameter pure function the coverage is close to sufficient, and the output schema already documents the return value. It still lacks the URL-counting semantics (what qualifies) and any routing versus get_hyperlink_count, so gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the single 'text' parameter is expected to be a wikitext string, which adds genuine meaning over the bare schema, but adds no format, size, or encoding detail beyond that.

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 (http(s) URLs) plus the scope (a wikitext string), so an agent knows exactly what it computes. However, it does not differentiate from the adjacent sibling get_hyperlink_count, which an agent could easily confuse with URL counting.

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 when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no exclusions. With a large sibling family of similarly named count tools (get_doi_count, get_ref_count, get_isbn_count, get_hyperlink_count), the agent is left to infer selection entirely on its own.

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