Count accommodations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it counts matching filters and does not describe return format, rate limits, or auth needs; no contradiction with annotations.

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 with no redundant wording. Its brevity is efficient, though the missing detail is better assessed under contextual completeness.

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 16-parameter count tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin. It should at least state that the return value is an integer count and clarify how the filter set maps to the sibling search tool; annotations cover safety but not query semantics.

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?

There are 16 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says the filters match sh_search_accommodations. It adds no per-parameter meaning, so the agent must infer all filter semantics from the sibling tool.

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 specific verb ('Count') and resource ('stays'), and ties the filters to sh_search_accommodations, so the agent can distinguish counting from searching. It does not explicitly say the return is only a count, but the verb and title make that clear enough.

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?

Implies the tool is used when you need a count with the same filters as sh_search_accommodations, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the search tool or when not to use it. The sibling reference gives useful context without full routing guidance.

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