count

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it is fast and retrieves no actual data. Without annotations, it carries the burden, but it doesn't mention potential rate limits, exact return format, or whether the count respects all query filters. It adds some value but not exhaustive context.

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 two short sentences, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple count tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could mention what the count represents (e.g., total matching entities across all pages) but is otherwise sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter with a helpful description including syntax support. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so it stays at 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's purpose: 'Get only the count of search results'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'search' tool by emphasizing it retrieves no actual data, only the count.

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 mentions it is 'Useful for refining search strategies' and notes it is 'Fast', implying it should be used when only the count is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond this context.

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