mirrored_database_get_tables_mirroring_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the per-table scoping detail but discloses nothing about return format, possible status values, or pagination. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place, and the scoping qualifier 'individual tables' carries the discriminating information needed to distinguish it from related tools.

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 only two simple string parameters, a read-only annotation, and no nested objects, the tool is low in complexity. The description conveys scope and the schema covers all parameters, so an agent can invoke it correctly. The only gap is the lack of an output schema or any statement about the response shape, which is a minor issue for a status-read tool.

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%, with both workspaceId and mirroredDatabaseId documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level 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?

States a specific read verb ('Get') on a well-defined resource: the mirroring status of individual tables within a mirrored database. The qualifier 'individual tables' differentiates this from the sibling mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status, which targets database-level status. An agent can tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 phrase 'individual tables' implies per-table granularity, which distinguishes this from the database-level mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status sibling. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over that alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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