Get DB Backup History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two facts annotations cannot convey: the hard 7-day retention window of the query and the Azure SQL Database incompatibility. It stops short of describing return ordering or any pagination, but for a bounded read tool this is solid added context.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the resource, scope, and returned columns; the second is a short platform caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the platform limitation, which is enough for correct invocation. The one real gap is the absence of any routing signal versus the closely named mssql_recent_backups sibling.

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% and the single databaseName parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default to the connected database. The description's phrase 'one database' hints at the same parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific resource (backup history for one database) and enumerates exactly what it returns: type, start/finish, duration, size, compressed size, file location. The 7-day window is stated up front. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling mssql_recent_backups, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 'last 7 days' scope and the 'Not available on Azure SQL Database' caveat give some implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to an alternative such as mssql_recent_backups. An agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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