search_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions counting records but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles large datasets or pagination, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists).

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Count records') and directly states the key parameters ('matching a domain in an Odoo model'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 compensate. It mentions 'domain' and 'Odoo model', which aligns with the two parameters ('model' and 'domain'), but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid model name, the structure of a domain array, or that 'domain' is optional with a default of null. This adds some meaning but leaves key details uncovered.

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 action ('Count records') and target ('matching a domain in an Odoo model'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_read' (which likely returns records rather than just a count), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_read' for retrieving records or 'read_group' for aggregated counts, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid model name or authenticated session.

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