Count shippable ClickBank orders

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so no mutation disclosure is needed. However, the description omits a key behavioral trait: the interaction between pagination (page/maxPages) and the count result. Since maxPages defaults to 1 and limits fetched pages, the count may not represent a total, and the description does not disclose this.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and scope efficiently, earning every word.

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?

Despite strong schema coverage, the description is thin for a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not clarify whether the returned count is the total across all pages or only the pages fetched via page/maxPages, which is a material gap for a counting tool. An agent could easily misinterpret the result.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented with meaningful detail (dates, receipt override, maxPages, status enum). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond 'shipping filters', but the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Count' and identifies the resource as 'physical-goods orders matching shipping filters', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like count_orders (all orders) and list_shippable_orders (list vs count). It is not a tautology and states the tool's core function unambiguously.

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 implies when to use this tool—when a count of physical-goods orders is needed—but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Siblings such as count_orders and list_shippable_orders are not referenced, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name rather than from explicit guidance.

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