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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description still adds meaningful behavior: 'No passwords' tells the agent that credentials are excluded (pointing implicitly toward get_database_credentials), and 'users with their databases (null: all) and read_only' explains a semantic quirk of the returned data. The openWorldHint implication of live external reads is not discussed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is compressed into essentially one long comma-chained sentence enumerating ten-plus field groups, so information density is high but scannability is poor; the core action ('fetch one database') is buried mid-list rather than front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, but the structure could be far cleaner.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating status, connection details, users, extensions, backups, maintenance window, and warnings, plus the password exclusion. Error/not-found behavior and Valkey-vs-standard variants are only partially addressed, so it stops short of fully complete.

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 100% and the 'database' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Database id, as returned by list_databases or create_database'). The description adds nothing beyond signaling that exactly one database is addressed, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 title plus the opening phrase 'One database: status, connection..., backups and restore window, maintenance window, fork link, warning' makes clear this returns the full detail record for a single database, which contrasts naturally with list_databases (plural) and get_database_metrics (time series). The verb itself is only implied ('One database:'), but the enumerated payload makes the resource and scope 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs details/status for an already-known database id. No alternative is named (e.g., 'use list_databases to find the id, use get_database_metrics for performance'), and the 'Scope: vms.read' note is a permission hint rather than a usage rule.

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