cosmosdb_count_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (JSON with 'count' field) and auth behavior (key-based vs DefaultAzureCredential). However, it does not cover rate limits, permissions needed, or potential errors.

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 about 6 lines, well-structured with examples. Every sentence adds value: purpose, filter usage, auth. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters with examples, return format, and auth. It mentions the output schema return field. Missing details on error cases or performance, but overall complete for a count tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: explains the 'where' parameter with examples and syntax, and the 'key_env_var' parameter with default and auth implications. The required params (account, database, container) are self-explanatory given the tool name, but the description could offer more detail.

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 'Count items in a Cosmos DB container, with an optional filter.' It uses a specific verb (count) and resource (items in Cosmos DB container), and differentiates from siblings like cosmosdb_query_items (which returns items, not just count) and cosmosdb_get_container_info (which returns container metadata).

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 explains when to use the optional filter and mentions auth mechanism, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like query_items. Usage is implied for counting rather than fetching items, but no direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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