Database access rules

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

Annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world operation. The description adds that the output includes allowed hosts and SSL mode, which is useful return-content context, but it does not go beyond that to describe auth needs, failure modes, or formatting.

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 very short and contains no wasted words. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a fully structured action statement, which slightly limits front-loaded clarity.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description gives the essential return contents (hosts and SSL mode). It remains incomplete because it does not state the retrieval action explicitly or provide any usage context, leaving gaps an agent must infer from the tool name.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema as 'Database name.' The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource and returned fields (allowed hosts and SSL mode), but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. The tool name implies a retrieval action, yet the description itself does not explicitly say what the tool does, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling db_set_access.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as db_set_access, nor does it state prerequisites or the context in which an agent should call this tool rather than another database-related sibling.

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