count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without detailing any side effects (none expected for a count), return format, or constraints (e.g., counting behavior with skip/limit). The agent cannot infer that this is a read-only operation or what the output structure is.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the core function. However, it is overly terse and lacks structured details that would aid the agent, such as separating purpose from usage notes. Score reflects conciseness but slight under-information.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits essential information like the return type (a count number), whether the count is approximate or exact, and behavior with optional parameters like skip/limit. A more complete description would provide contextual completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is provided.

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 verb 'count' and the resource 'documents in a collection matching a query', which accurately defines the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'aggregate' or 'query', which could also perform 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'aggregate' for more complex aggregations). There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without sufficient context to choose appropriately.

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