Get Databases Config Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it reports risky values via 'Flags' and that onlyFlagged=true is the default filter, which is important because the default silently narrows the result set. It still does not describe row shape or any permission requirements.

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 compact sentences with the scope and the full setting list front-loaded, followed by the flagging/default behavior. Slightly dense with an awkward comma splice before 'onlyFlagged', but no wasted content.

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, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does reasonably well by naming the settings checked and the presence of risk flags. It does not state whether output is one row per database or the exact flag/severity semantics, which is the remaining gap for a diagnostic 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% and the single parameter's schema text ('Return only databases with at least one flag. Set false to return all.') already fully documents it. The description restates the default rather than adding format or cost semantics, 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?

The description states a specific scope ('every online user database') and enumerates exactly which settings are evaluated (compatibility level, recovery model, page verify, auto close, auto shrink, auto statistics, target recovery time, Query Store) plus the flagging behavior. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish this from mssql_server_config (server-level) or mssql_db_info, though it never names a 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the per-database configuration-health check and that onlyFlagged controls breadth, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as mssql_server_config or mssql_db_info.

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