client_count

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation and the scope is explicit, but the description does not disclose authentication requirements, rate-limit implications, or whether the count can be filtered. For a zero-parameter count endpoint this is a minor gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and scope are all present, and nothing is repeated from the name.

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 zero-parameter operation the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and operation. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of a count operation make this a minor omission.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema and description have nothing to elaborate. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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?

Description names a specific action (get count) on a specific resource (OAuth2 clients) with a scope qualifier (owned by current user). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like client_list and client_get, which return collections or individual records rather than a 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 choose client_count over client_list or how the count relates to pagination or listing. The 'owned by current user' qualifier provides some context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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