cosmosdb_read_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning the full item document as JSON and implies no side effects, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., item not found), permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with clear structure: purpose, return value, and a required-parameter rationale. 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?

With 5 required parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple read tool, but it fails to explain account, database, and container parameters, which is a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains item_id and partition_key, but not account, database, or container. This leaves 3 of 5 parameters undocumented in meaning.

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 'Read a single item' with the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like query_items or upsert_item by focusing on point reads by ID and partition key.

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 that both item_id and partition_key are required and why partition key is needed for efficient point reads. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for different scenarios.

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