count_orders_by_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the aggregation behavior ('grouped by status') but doesn't add details like whether all orders are included, if zero-count statuses appear, or the exact return shape. For a simple read-only count, the lack of side effects is implied by 'get,' but additional context would be helpful.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds a brief use case, making it highly efficient.

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 aggregation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential behavior and intended use. It could be improved by specifying the output structure (e.g., key-value pairs or list of status/count), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate, as there is no parameter information needed and the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get order count grouped by status' clearly specifies the verb (get), resource (order count), and grouping (by status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_orders or get_order, which return order details rather than aggregated 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?

The phrase 'Useful for dashboard overview' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for aggregate reporting rather than detailed order inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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