Count active services

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

The description adds the active status filter and product scoping, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what 'active' means or what the return type is. Since readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already disclose the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and clearly states the object and scope.

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 one-parameter count tool with read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly describes what is counted. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the fact that 'Count' implies a numeric result, but a brief note on return format would make it more complete.

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 fully covers product_id with a description 'Product UUID' (100% schema description coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 'Count active contract products for a product' clearly states a specific action (count), a distinct resource (active contract products), and a scope (for a product). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contracts and get_contract, which list/retrieve rather than count.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with list_contracts or get_contract. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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