Get Database Owners

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the sa exclusion is based on SID 0x01 so a renamed sa still counts, orphaned owners (logins that no longer exist) are included, and the tool is unavailable on Azure SQL Database.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately qualified by the two inclusion rules and the platform limit. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

For a no-param, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering rules, orphan handling, and platform limits. It could briefly note the return shape (owner name per database), but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 (database owners) and sharply narrows scope: user databases not owned by sa (by SID, so renamed sa is caught), plus orphaned owners. That specificity makes it distinguishable from generic siblings like mssql_db_info or mssql_privileged_logins, though no sibling is named 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 call this tool versus alternatives such as mssql_privileged_logins or mssql_db_config_health. The Azure SQL unavailability is a platform constraint, not usage routing guidance, so the agent gets no when/when-not direction.

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