Счётчики по фильтру

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a single cheap request that does not fetch listings and that it returns two non-matching counters to be reported separately — non-obvious behavior. However it never explains why the two counters differ or what each represents, and says nothing about read-only nature, limits, or auth.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the cheapness rationale, with no filler. The final sentence carries a critical, non-obvious output caveat rather than padding.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry return-value meaning, and it only partially does: it names 'two non-matching counters' without explaining what distinguishes them. Parameter meaning is fully covered by the schema, so the gap is confined to the ambiguous return semantics.

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% across 12 well-documented parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('считает результаты по фильтру') and clarifies scope ('не выкачивая их'), which implicitly contrasts it with the download-heavy sibling 'search'. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: validating that criteria are meaningful and comparing filter variants. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the use case is clear and actionable.

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