Get Offline Databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is the operational definition of 'offline' (the state enumeration) and the triage signal 'any row needs attention'; it says nothing about result shape, counts, or ordering, so a 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 compact sentence with the definition front-loaded and the actionable takeaway ('Any row needs attention') at the end. No filler, no redundancy with 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the states that produce rows, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with complete annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient; only the absence of any mention of scope (server-wide vs. instance) leaves a small gap.

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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain or omit. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 the resource (databases that are not ONLINE) and enumerates the exact states counted as offline (OFFLINE, RESTORING, RECOVERING, SUSPECT, EMERGENCY), so an agent knows precisely what a row represents. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as mssql_all_db_info or mssql_db_info, which also return database rows, so it falls short of a 5.

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: 'Any row needs attention' signals this is a diagnostic/triage check, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., use mssql_all_db_info for a full inventory). Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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