ecp_db_services_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that this is a non-mutating status check across specific DB engines plus the MySQL caveat. It doesn't specify the return format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter status probe that is a minor gap.

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?

A single sentence covers the action, target engines, scope, and the MySQL exception without redundancies. It is compact, front-loaded, and every clause adds relevant information.

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 status check with no output schema, the description is complete enough to select and invoke correctly. It identifies the engines, the status dimensions, account scope, and why MySQL is excluded, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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, and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful contextual meaning by explaining which engines are relevant and which is always available, which is more than the empty schema supplies.

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 checks whether Postgres, MSSQL, and Mongo are enabled/configured/status for the account, so the agent knows exactly what resource is being checked. The MySQL parenthetical distinguishes this tool from MySQL-related DB tools by explaining MySQL is always available and not part of the optional DB check.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call this tool: when the status of optional database engines is needed. It also provides an exclusion by noting MySQL is always available and not an optional engine, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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