get_wishlist_item_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it clearly describes the tool's purpose, it lacks important behavioral details such as whether this is a real-time or cached count, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the count is returned in. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly states what the tool does but lacks information about return format, data freshness, or any behavioral constraints. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'app_id' parameter clearly documented as 'Steam application ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 specific action ('Get the number of users') and resource ('who have a specific game on their wishlist'), using a precise verb+resource structure. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_wishlist' (which likely returns wishlist items rather than counts) and 'get_player_count' (which counts players rather than wishlist users).

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 usage context (when you need wishlist count data for a specific game), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wishlist' or 'get_player_count'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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