Count Found Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or allowed number of results. It meets the baseline but does not enhance transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is minimal. It explains basic purpose but omits the return type (presumably integer), scope (e.g., within a collection), and whether the count is subject to pagination or limits. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameter descriptions cover all 13 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond stating that parameters are search criteria. The description does not elucidate any parameter interactions or constraints.

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 action 'Count' and resource 'documents', and mentions 'matching search criteria', distinguishing it from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_find_documents which return documents, not counts. However, it does not explicitly state that the result is an integer count, which could be inferred but not confirmed.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_coll_count_docs or transkribus_coll_find_documents. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer without explicit direction.

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