Get Database Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds no behavior beyond that (no cost, no permissions, no caveats about restricted DMV visibility). With annotations carrying the safety load, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 dense sentence with the scope front-loaded and the attribute inventory following. No filler, though the comma-separated field list makes it read as a run-on rather than structured output summary.

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?

No output schema exists, so enumerating the returned fields (state, recovery model, compatibility level, sizes, flags, create date) is genuinely load-bearing information for the agent. The remaining gap is that server context and privilege requirements are unstated, which matters for a diagnostics tool against a specific instance.

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?

Only one parameter (databaseName) and schema coverage is 100%, with the default ('connected database') already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

States the resource (database info) and the scope qualifier 'for one database', then enumerates the exact attributes returned. The 'one database' scope implicitly separates it from the mssql_all_db_info sibling, though that sibling is never named. Clear enough that an agent knows what it gets without opening the schema.

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 only implied by the phrase 'for one database' — the agent can infer this is the single-database counterpart to mssql_all_db_info, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative is stated explicitly. No mention of required permissions or workload conditions.

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