databases_get

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds context the annotations do not: the required auth scope 'databases:read' and an inventory of the returned facets (pooler, standby, allow list). It does not cover error behavior for a missing id, but for a read tool with annotation coverage this is solid added value.

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?

A single telegraphic fragment with zero filler, front-loading the returned content and ending with the scope requirement. The clipped style costs a little readability but wastes no words.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description does enough: it says what entity is fetched, what is included in the response, and what scope is needed. Only not-found behavior is left unaddressed.

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 is well documented ('Database id from databases_list: pg-<n>'). The description adds nothing about the id argument, so the baseline 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 precisely (a single managed PostgreSQL cluster) and enumerates what is returned: status, connection details, pooler, standby, allow list. That clearly separates it from the list/delete/allow-list siblings, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied by the noun phrase.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is a singular-fetch tool, and the schema note 'Database id from databases_list' hints at the list-then-get flow. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of alternatives such as databases_list, and no mention of what happens for an unknown id.

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