Count Found Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar for the description is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation — no mention of result bounding, the open-world scope implied by openWorldHint, or what the count represents. This is acceptable but adds no value on top of 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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words — the verb and object appear immediately. It is appropriately brief for a count operation, though it errs on the side of brevity given the 13-parameter search surface it governs.

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 tool with 13 filter parameters, no required arguments, and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not state the return shape, whether the count is bounded, or how this differs from the find_documents variants among siblings. The 100% schema coverage and safety annotations partially compensate, making this minimally viable but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 filter parameters is already documented with a description; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'search criteria' broadly groups the parameters but adds no combinatorial semantics, such as how filters combine or the effect of defaults like isDeleted and exactMatch.

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') plus resource ('documents') and the scoping mechanism ('matching the given search criteria'), which inherently distinguishes it from transkribus_coll_find_documents (returns the documents) and transkribus_coll_count_docs (counts within a single collection). However, the differentiation is implicit in the word 'Count' rather than explicit, and no sibling is named.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this over the adjacent family: transkribus_coll_find_documents, transkribus_coll_find_documents_post, and transkribus_coll_count_docs are all plausible alternatives an agent could confuse it with. No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision context are given — the single sentence simply restates the operation.

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