quarantine_quarantined_objects__get_quarantined_objects_count

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully implies that the filter parameters scope the count, but it does not say what is returned (for example, an integer or a wrapper object), whether the count is exact, or whether it respects any limits. Because there is no output schema, that omission matters.

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 short, but it is redundant: 'Get quarantined objects count' is repeated as '(GET /v1/quarantined-objects/count)' and then restated as 'Get the count of quarantined objects matching the criteria.' Three phrasings carry only two ideas.

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?

A count endpoint with 15 optional filters, no output schema, and no explanation of the return value is under-described. The description says nothing about the shape of the result or the cost or behavior of running a broad unfiltered count, which is exactly what an agent needs here.

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 all 15 filter parameters, including the three enums, are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'matching the criteria,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the count of quarantined objects matching the criteria.' This distinguishes it from get_quarantined_object, but it never mentions the sibling list_quarantined_objects, which is the real alternative an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_quarantined_objects, no prerequisites, and no statement such as 'use this when you only need a total rather than the records.' The only hint is the phrase 'matching the criteria,' which implies the filter parameters apply.

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