get_activity_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. The verb 'get' and the nature of counting imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, but this is not explicitly stated. No side effects or behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs) are disclosed.

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 extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by a clean list of parameters and return type. No redundant text; every sentence adds value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (context indicates yes), the description still explains the return type ('JSON string containing activity count'), which is helpful. For a simple count tool with optional filters, this is nearly complete. Minor gaps: no mention of default behavior when no filters are applied.

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%, but the description explicitly lists each parameter (contact_id, candidate_id, job_id) with the phrase 'Filter by ...' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema titles, indicating they are optional filters. However, details like how multiple filters combine or required format are missing.

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 'Get total count of activities with optional filtering.' This identifies the specific action (get count) and resource (activities). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling such as get_activities (which returns list) and get_application_count (different resource), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_activities for details). There are no prerequisites, when-not conditions, or context for optimal usage. Agent must infer from the name alone.

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