get_user_counts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the 10,000 record limit from the DiVA API, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention read-only nature, authentication, or side effects. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 brief yet informative: 4 sentences front-loaded with purpose and metrics. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Covers aggregation options and record limits, but lacks output representation details (no output schema). Does not explain how filters or other parameters affect results. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for complex queries.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by naming specific metrics (accounts, suspended, growth) not in the schema, and the API limit note relates to the count parameter. But it does not explain 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 user count metrics over time, specifying metrics like accounts, suspended users, and growth. It is specific and actionable, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_card_counts or get_users, so not a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'Essential for program monitoring and analytics' but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling comparisons. The description implies usage for aggregate trends but does not exclude other scenarios.

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