get_database_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the output includes size, files, status, and recovery model, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if special permissions are required, if there are performance implications, or what happens when parameters are omitted. This is minimal disclosure for a standard read operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get detailed database information') and then lists the key output fields. There is no redundant repetition or stray text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 relatively simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary return values but omits any usage context, such as which sibling tools are alternatives or how results are shaped (single record vs. list). Without annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: both 'server' and 'database' have descriptions indicating they are optional and fall back to defaults. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a resource ('database information'), and enumerates specific details (size, files, status, recovery model). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_databases or get_server_info, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction for the agent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_server_info or list_databases. There is no mention of prerequisites, context where this is preferred, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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