infomaniak_get_database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing what 'full detail' includes (disk usage, application, permissions, backups), giving the agent a concrete sense of the returned information. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that adds value without clutter. Every word contributes to purpose and expected return content.

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 read-only get operation with a clear output schema and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be slightly richer by referencing sibling tools or clarifying prerequisites, but the available schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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 only 50%, with hosting_id lacking any description and database_name getting a helpful description. The tool description does not add meaning for either parameter beyond calling the target 'a specific database', so it fails to compensate for the missing hosting_id semantics.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('full detail of a specific database'), adding concrete detail categories in parentheses. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_databases and infomaniak_get_database_user.

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 the tool is for one specific database rather than a list, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as infomaniak_list_databases. The schema's reference to infomaniak_list_databases provides some context, but the description itself offers no direct exclusions or alternative guidance.

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