Count ClickBank tickets

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe read operation, and the description adds that the operation produces a count rather than ticket objects. However, it does not clarify how the filters combine, whether results are grouped, or what the response shape looks like.

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 with no filler or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

For a simple count tool, the description is serviceable, but it leaves important gaps: no output schema is present, 'or' makes filter combination ambiguous, and the receipt parameter is undefined. An agent could invoke the tool correctly with basic inference, but not with full confidence about multi-parameter behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats the parameter names as filtering dimensions. It does not explain what 'receipt' means, whether the parameters combine with AND or OR logic, or whether the count is filtered or grouped by these values.

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 a specific verb ('Count') and a specific resource ('tickets') and names the three filtering dimensions: type, status, or receipt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tickets or get_ticket, which return ticket data rather than counts.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_tickets or get_ticket, but the verb 'Count' and the tool name imply it is for aggregate numeric summaries rather than retrieving ticket details. The usage context is implied, not stated.

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