get_recent_count_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Makes no changes,' 'One result per segment,' 'Pagination not supported,' and 'SegmentIds... will simply be ignored.' This goes beyond the annotations.

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: a header line with emoji and endpoint, followed by two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and constraints. The emoji adds no information but does not hurt. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers return behavior (one result per segment), constraints (max 100, no pagination), and error handling (ignored nonexistent ids). It lacks an explanation of 'without AdditionalCriteria' but overall is quite complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it clarifies that nonexistent segment IDs are ignored (beyond the schema's 'comma separated list') and mentions the 100 limit. No other parameter details are expanded.

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 it retrieves the most recent result count for segments run without AdditionalCriteria. It specifies the HTTP verb, endpoint, and key constraints (one result per segment, no pagination, max 100 ids). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_count_history_by_segment_id or get_saved_segment_summaries.

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 indicates when to use (for segments without AdditionalCriteria) and states constraints (no pagination, max 100 ids, nonexistent ids ignored). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., segments with AdditionalCriteria or paginated results), but the context is clear enough.

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