Get DBCC CHECKDB Status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it never executes CHECKDB, it flags databases with no check or one older than 7 days, and databases the login cannot read return UNKNOWN. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Extremely dense with zero filler: the returned artifacts, the staleness threshold, the non-execution guarantee, the permission edge case, and the platform limitation are all packed in without a wasted clause. The most important constraint ('Never runs CHECKDB') is front-loaded after the resource statement.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it enumerates what is returned (per-DB check date, flags, suspect_pages rows), the flagging rule, the UNKNOWN sentinel, and the platform restriction. An agent can call it and interpret results without further context.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. No meaningful gain is possible or required here.

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 verb+resource: reports the last known good DBCC CHECKDB date per online database plus rows in msdb.dbo.suspect_pages. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling backup/config tools (mssql_recent_backups, mssql_db_config_health) because it names the exact artifacts it returns.

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?

Explicitly says 'Never runs CHECKDB', which tells the agent this is a status read rather than an action, and 'Not available on Azure SQL Database' is a clear when-not condition. It does not name a sibling alternative for cases where corruption details are needed, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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