Get Collection Stats

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully clarifies what each count means and its provenance (equivalence to search_objects total_count), which is real value beyond the annotations, but says nothing about cost, caching, or freshness of the counts.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the enumeration of counted categories comes first and the equivalence note follows as a useful second beat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, count categories, and semantics of the numbers for this simple one-parameter tool. Only marginally incomplete for lacking any note on when counts might be stale or when to prefer search_objects directly.

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 100% and the single optional 'museum' parameter is documented in-schema as 'museum name or unit code.' The description adds only the default-behavior meaning ('whole collection or one museum'), which is marginal but confirms what happens when the argument is omitted.

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 operation (counts) over a specific resource (searchable objects, archive records, image-bearing objects, CC0-media objects) and names the scope options. It distinguishes itself from siblings by tying each count back to the total_count of a search_objects call, though it never explicitly frames itself as the alternative to search_objects.

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?

Usage is only implied: by stating each count equals the matching search_objects total_count, it hints that this tool is a shortcut for counting rather than paging results. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, nor guidance on choosing between whole-collection and single-museum scope beyond restating the parameter.

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