db_get_logical_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameters; it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. It also doesn't describe the return format (though an output schema exists). The description adds little beyond the basic 'get' semantics.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. This is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic inputs and purpose. However, it fails to explain the relationship between database_id and db_name, or why both are required. It also doesn't mention any special cases or error conditions. For a straightforward get, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 provides brief parameter semantics: 'database_id: The database ID or label' clarifies that this can be an ID or a label, and 'db_name: The logical database name' essentially restates the parameter name. Since the schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), these minimal details add some value, but they don't explain why both parameters are required or their relationship. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get information about a logical database.' This distinguishes it from siblings like db_list_databases (listing) and db_create_logical_database (creation). However, it doesn't specify what kind of information is returned beyond the generic 'logical database information,' which is slightly vague but acceptable for a get operation.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like db_list_databases or db_get_usage, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the action 'get.'

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