opensearch_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only says 'Quick' and 'Lighter than full query'. It doesn't explain the return value, potential errors, performance ceilings, or how it handles missing indexes. The behavioral trait hint is minimal but present, so a 2 is appropriate.

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 that conveys the core action, optional filter, and comparative value. It is highly concise with no wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return value and any caveats. It does not mention that the result is a count or what happens when no index is specified. The completeness is lacking, especially given that the schema has zero required parameters, creating ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 'optional query filter' concept already in the schema, adding no new semantics. Thus it doesn't elevate beyond baseline.

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 tool performs a 'document count' with an optional query filter, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'opensearch_query' by being 'lighter than full query'. This gives a specific verb-resource pair and scope.

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 says 'Lighter than full query', which clearly implies using this when only a count is needed and not the actual documents. It provides clear context for when to choose this over a full query, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or mention exclusions.

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