get_card_counts

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

The description discloses a key behavioral constraint: 'DiVA API limits results to 10,000 records per query.' However, it does not mention read-only status, required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers behavioral traits.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence stating the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys key points without unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides essential context (aggregation types, API limit) but lacks details about return format or pagination behavior. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds some context (example metrics like 'active cards, suspended cards'), but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states it retrieves aggregated card count metrics over time, specifying example metrics like cards in circulation. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_cards' by focusing on aggregated counts rather than individual card records.

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 description implies usage for program health monitoring ('Essential for program health monitoring'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_cards' or 'get_user_counts'. No when-not or comparison is given.

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