db_count

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 states the core behavior (count rows, optionally filtered) but does not disclose return format, potential performance implications, or how filters are applied. Basic behavior is transparent, but richer context is missing.

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 redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the action and scope.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters, and the schema fully documents them. The description adequately conveys the purpose, though it omits explicit return type information and how filters map to SQL conditions. For a straightforward count operation, this is acceptable and complete enough.

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% (both 'table' and 'filters' are documented). The description's mention of 'optional filters' adds slight emphasis on their optionality, but the schema already marks 'filters' as not required. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Count' with the resource 'table' and notes 'optional filters', which clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like db_select (returns rows) and db_insert. The scope is unambiguous.

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 counting rows with optional filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sql_aggregate or sql_execute_raw. No exclusions or conditional recommendations are given.

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