ecp_mssql_database_sizes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a useful signal, but the description says nothing about the return format, whether all databases (including system ones) are included, or any permissions needed. It is not misleading, just terse.

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 entire description is a single 7-word sentence. Every word carries meaning, no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool without an output schema, this description is nearly sufficient. It states a minimal but useful expectation: you will get the sizes of all MSSQL databases. It does not detail fallback, units, or exact output, but at this level of complexity those are optional.

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 the schema is fully described (there is nothing to define). Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'get size' of 'each MSSQL database'. It clearly indicates the tool returns database sizes, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ecp_mssql_table_sizes or ecp_mssql_list_databases beyond the immediate sense of the name.

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 explain when to use this tool over alternatives or mention the near-identical ecp_mysql_database_sizes / ecp_postgres_database_sizes / ecp_mongo_database_sizes siblings. The only usage guidance is implied by the wording 'get size of each MSSQL database'.

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