Count ClickBank orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that filtering matches list_orders, but it does not disclose the return format or whether the count is bounded or paginated. With annotations covering the main behavioral concerns, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately references the relevant sibling for filter semantics. It is concise with no wasted words, though it leans heavily on list_orders and could be considered slightly under-specified.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a single integer count, a formatted response, or a count with metadata). With 12 parameters and only 33% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the filter set and return value. The indirect reference to list_orders is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool confidently without locating that sibling's definition.

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 only 33%, with 8 of 12 parameters lacking descriptions. The description says the filters are 'the same as list_orders', but this is indirect and depends on knowledge of another tool's schema. Parameter names and enums provide partial self-evident meaning, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Count orders'. It also references list_orders, which signals this is the counting counterpart to that listing tool and helps distinguish it from other order-related siblings like get_order or check_order_active. It does not enumerate the filters, but the schema provides that detail.

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 phrase 'matching the same filters as list_orders' gives clear contextual guidance: use this when a count is needed instead of a full order list, using identical filter semantics. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like count_shippable_orders, but it clearly points to the most relevant sibling.

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