get_subscriptions_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns only the quantity, not a list, and scopes the count to subscriptions visible to the authenticated identity. This is extra information beyond the annotations and clarifies what the tool actually does.

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 concise and well-structured: a first sentence states the core behavior, a short list gives concrete usage examples, and a final sentence provides a negative usage rule. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded before the examples.

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?

For a parameterless count tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is counted, the scope, and gives concrete example queries. The explicit exclusion of search_official_guidance covers the most plausible alternative. No critical missing information remains for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to supplement. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. The semantic guidance about 'visible to the authenticated identity' is the only relevant input-related context, and it is clear. A score of 4 reflects the zero-parameter baseline.

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 that the tool returns exclusively the count of Azure subscriptions visible to the authenticated identity. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('Azure subscriptions'), and the scope ('visible to the authenticated identity') is explicit. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly warning not to use search_official_guidance for this purpose, which helps disambiguate from a sibling.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it lists sample natural-language questions that should route here ('How many subscriptions exist?', 'How many Azure subscriptions do I have?', etc.). It also explicitly states when NOT to use an alternative tool by saying NOT to use search_official_guidance to discover subscription counts. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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