get_company_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string with count) but does not mention potential side effects, caching, or error handling. The behavior is minimal and predictable, so a middling score is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear and free of unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, straightforward output) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential aspects. It could be slightly enhanced by mentioning any limitations on the search filter, but overall it is adequate.

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 add meaning. The description explains the 'search' parameter as an optional filter query, which is helpful. It adds context beyond the schema's type definition, though it could further clarify acceptable input patterns.

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 the tool retrieves a total count of companies with an optional search filter, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_company' (single company) and 'list_companies' (list details).

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?

The description implies usage for counting companies but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_application_count' or 'get_contact_count'. No exclusions or trade-offs are stated.

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