superset_database_get_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoint ('/api/v1/database/{id}') and return type ('dictionary with complete database configuration information'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by implementation details and parameter/return documentation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics (purpose, endpoint, parameter meaning, return type) for a simple read tool. However, it lacks details on authentication, error responses, or data format examples, which would enhance completeness for integration.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter 'database_id' as 'ID of the database to retrieve.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's basic type information. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for effective use.

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's purpose: 'Get details for a specific database' and 'retrieve detailed information about a specific database connection.' This specifies the verb ('get details/retrieve') and resource ('specific database'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'superset_database_list' or 'superset_database_get_connection' beyond the 'by_id' aspect.

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 implies usage context through the parameter description ('ID of the database to retrieve'), suggesting this tool is for fetching details of a known database ID. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'superset_database_list' for browsing or 'superset_database_get_connection' for connection-specific info.

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