text_count_occurrences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'count occurrences' without disclosing default case sensitivity, handling of overlapping matches, or whether it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 one sentence of five words, which is efficient but overly brief. It lacks structured breakdown of parameters or behavior, though it is not verbose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., an integer count). It does not specify the return format, leaving the agent to guess. For a simple tool, this omission is significant.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'substring' and 'text', omitting the 'case_sensitive' parameter entirely. The agent cannot infer the boolean parameter's purpose from the description.

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 'occurrences of a substring in text', distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_transform or text_extract_emails. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when counting substring occurrences, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like regex-based counting or different matching modes.

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