mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name: it does not mention that this returns database-level status rather than per-table status, nor does it describe any output characteristics. With no extra behavioral disclosure, the description contributes little beyond the 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 clean sentence that states the operation directly. There is no redundant wording, filler, or repetition of schema details that would bloat the definition.

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 two-parameter read operation, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks an explicit distinction from mirrored_database_get_tables_mirroring_status and does not indicate what kind of status information is returned. Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, the agent may not know whether this tool returns overall database status or table-level details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, and the parameter names (workspaceId, mirroredDatabaseId) are reasonably self-explanatory. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the semantic burden well enough for a baseline score.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'mirroring status of a mirrored database'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool mirrored_database_get_tables_mirroring_status, so the resource scope is clear but the differentiation relies on the tool name.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mirrored_database_get_tables_mirroring_status, mirrored_database_start_mirroring, or mirrored_database_stop_mirroring. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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