count_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read-only counting operation, describes optional filters, and specifies the return shape. For a simple tool, this is adequate, though it could mention edge cases like deleted orders or permission requirements.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Count total orders') and efficiently specifies the optional filters and return format. No wasted words.

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 simple (no required params, no output schema), and the description explains the return shape. It is mostly complete, but could benefit from a brief note on when to prefer this over list/search siblings, and it doesn't address potential filtering nuances. Still, it's sufficient for basic use.

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?

The input schema fully documents all 4 parameters with descriptions and enums (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (counting) and resource (orders), and the return format '{ count: N }' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orders or search_orders that return order objects. It is specific and 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?

The description implies when to use it (when you need a count rather than a list of orders) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks the guidance seen in higher-scoring tools that say 'use X instead of Y'.

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