get_comment_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get comment count'), without explaining how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns raw counts, formatted data, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence ('Get comment count for each seat') that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a list, a map, or aggregated total), how counts are structured, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more context is needed to guide effective 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is required.

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 the tool's purpose ('Get comment count for each seat'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_comments' or 'get_seat_comments', leaving ambiguity about scope and granularity. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what exactly is being counted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_all_comments' and 'get_seat_comments', it's unclear whether this tool aggregates counts across all seats, provides per-seat breakdowns, or serves a different purpose. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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