network_count

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention required permissions, error behavior, or whether the count is affected by the 'contains' filter; it also lacks an explicit no-side-effects statement.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though it could have earned a 5 by also noting a sibling alternative or filter behavior.

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 count tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient: the caller knows the resource, scope, required unit, and optional filter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, some behavioral context such as permissions and response shape is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the unit ID and the case-insensitive contains filter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the phrase 'in a unit'.

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 states a clear action ('Get the count'), a specific resource ('networks'), and a scoping condition ('in a unit'). It does not explicitly distinguish counting from listing, but the noun 'count' makes the operation unambiguous relative to network_list.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of network_list or the other count tools. The only context is the scoping phrase 'in a unit', which is also present in the parameter schema.

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