things_count_items

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: segmented scanning semantics, the need to sum partial counts, concurrency caveats, and the offset zero requirement.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose and then provide the key operational constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 complex paginated count tool with 17 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential scan-loop behavior, concurrency caveat, and offset constraint. It is slightly incomplete because it does not define the filter parameters or explicitly distinguish usage from find_items.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains offset and scanOffset indirectly, and defers filter parameter semantics to find. However, most of the 17 parameters are not individually explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 clear verb-resource pair: count matches within a scan segment. It is distinct from find_items (retrieval vs counting) and get_item (single item fetch), so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 clear operational guidance: follow nextScanOffset, sum counts until scanComplete, and keep offset at zero. It references find for filter semantics, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over find_items or another sibling.

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