Get All Databases Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope ('all databases on the instance'), which is already implied by the name; it discloses nothing about result size, ordering, or cost on instances with many databases.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope first and a compact comma-separated field list after. Efficient, with no filler sentences, though the colon-heavy list format is dense rather than structured.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations-driven return disclosure, so the column enumeration is doing real work in telling the agent what it gets back. However it leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether one row is returned per database, ordering, and any filters. Adequate for a simple inventory call, but not complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The field list describes the output shape rather than inputs, which is a reasonable substitute given no input exists.

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 a specific resource (all databases on the instance) and enumerates the attributes returned: state, recovery model, compatibility level, sizes, read-only, auto close, auto shrink, page verify, create date. It contrasts implicitly with the single-database sibling mssql_db_info via the 'All databases' scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling inventory tools (mssql_db_info, mssql_db_config_health, mssql_storage_capacity). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the fleet-wide inventory call.

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