get_database_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds a detailed scope of what the inventory covers (Query Store, automatic tuning, geo-replication links, etc.), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, potential result size, or execution cost.

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 sentence that opens with the primary action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the specific configuration categories. It is front-loaded, free of repetition, and every word adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does by listing the exact configuration domains it retrieves. There is no need to explain return values or behavioral nuances beyond what the annotations and output schema already provide.

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 single parameter database_name is fully described in the schema (optional, defaults to AZURE_SQL_DEFAULT_DATABASE). The tool description adds no extra parameter-related meaning, so the schema carries the full weight. With 100% schema_description_coverage, the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'Azure SQL database configuration inventory' and enumerates detailed sub-categories (version, read-only instance settings, database properties, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object_details (which focuses on objects) and check_runtime_status (which focuses on runtime health).

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 clearly communicates that this tool returns a database configuration inventory. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is unambiguous: it is the go-to tool for fetching configuration-related details. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, but the usage intent is strongly implied.

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