get_recognition_group_counts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: the upstream rejects plural type values with HTTP 400, type is forwarded as-is, and host supports multiple formats. It does not explicitly state read-only status but 'Get' implies it, and it does not hide side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear list of return fields and parameter explanations. Every sentence carries required information with no fluff or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only aggregate-count tool, this description is complete: it covers both parameters' acceptable inputs, reveals an important upstream behavior (400 on plural), and lists the return fields. The presence of an output schema also offloads return-value detailing. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the description fully compensates: it explains host formats (name, ID, or composite ID) and type constraints ('face' or 'vehicle', singular), including the upstream 400 error risk. Both required parameters are meaningfully described beyond their basic string type.

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 ('Get aggregate recognition-group counts') and identifies the resource ('a Protect console'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_recognition_groups or get_recognition_group_image. The returned totals are listed, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool by describing aggregate count outputs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The parameter guidance (singular forms, plural returns 400) is valuable but focuses on invocation rather than tool selection.

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