count_table_rows

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

No annotations exist. The description reveals the underlying SQL (COUNT_BIG(*)) which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like safety, performance impact, or whether it locks the table. It partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core purpose, one sentence for scope, and three bullet-point parameter descriptions. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 the tool's simplicity (count rows), no annotations, and presence of an output schema (though not displayed), the description adequately explains what it does and its required inputs. It could mention output format briefly, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for all three required parameters: 'workspace', 'item', and 'qualified_name', specifying they accept name or GUID and providing an example for the table name. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/title.

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 the tool returns the total row count via 'SELECT COUNT_BIG(*)', specifying the resource as a table, and distinguishes from siblings like count_view_rows by mentioning it works on both Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., count_view_rows for views), nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes the action without contextual use-case advice.

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