Count Records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone, and it only implies read-only behavior via 'Return the number'. It does not say whether the count is cheap/estimated, whether an empty/invalid kind returns 0 or an error, or anything about auth. For a trivial read this is acceptable but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the return value and the identifying parameter. It wastes nothing, though the parenthetical route reference (``/count``) is arguably implementation detail rather than agent-relevant content.

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?

The tool is genuinely simple, one required enum parameter, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still, the description omits any sibling differentiation against list_records and any behavior for edge cases, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 should compensate, but it only names ``kind`` without explaining what the enum values mean or how 'empty' behaves. The enum values are partially self-describing, which keeps this above a 1, but real semantic gaps remain.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the number of records for a given ``kind``, which contrasts implicitly with list_records (which returns the records themselves). It does not explicitly name the siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_records or get_record, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets a purpose statement but no routing logic.

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