humanitix_get_check_in_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the endpoint as BETA with a potentially changing response shape, and discloses that output is trimmed by default with raw=true for the full payload. It omits auth/permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the input provenance, then the stability and output-shape caveats. No filler.

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 read-only, two-identifier tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input sourcing, output shape options, and a stability warning. The one gap is not characterizing what the trimmed counts actually report, but nothing needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining where event_date_id comes from (humanitix_list_event_dates) and contrasting trimmed vs. raw output. It stops short of describing what the trimmed counts contain.

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 ('Get check-in totals for a Humanitix event and event date') and scopes it to two identifiers. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/get tools, none of which report check-in totals.

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?

Gives clear context and, notably, routes the agent to humanitix_list_event_dates for obtaining event_date_id. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when to use sales_summary instead), but the retrieval condition for its required input is explicit.

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