db.count

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It notes 'exact' row count, implying precision, but does not disclose return format, performance implications, or side effects. For a simple read-only operation, this is minimal but lacks richer behavioral context.

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: 'Get exact row count for a table. Use table or schema.table name.' No wasted words; every clause contributes either purpose or parameter format.

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 simple count tool, the description omits the return type (e.g., integer), the semantics of the `database` parameter, and any usage guidance relative to sibling tools. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves notable gaps in the full context an agent might need.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `table` accepts either a table name or schema.table format, which adds value. However, the optional `database` parameter is not mentioned, leaving its meaning ambiguous. Thus, partial compensation only.

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 'Get exact row count for a table' clearly states the action (get), the resource (row count for a table), and the specificity ('exact' distinguishes from estimates). It differentiates from siblings like db.preview or db.sample_values by focusing specifically on count.

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 no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons. It only gives parameter format guidance ('Use table or schema.table name'), which is not usage context. The absence of exclusions or alternative references leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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