get_autonomous_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by specific sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' each providing essential information in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return content, but lacks behavioral details like read-only confirmation or error handling. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete by addressing missing aspects.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'autonomous_database_id' is an 'OCID of the Autonomous Database to retrieve.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (OCID), which is valuable since the schema has 0% description coverage and only provides a title. With one parameter well-explained, the description compensates effectively.

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 detailed information about a specific Autonomous Database.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Autonomous Database'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_autonomous_databases' beyond the singular vs. plural naming, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'list_autonomous_databases' for listing multiple databases or clarify that this is for retrieving details of a single, specific database identified by its OCID. Without such context, the agent lacks explicit usage instructions.

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