get_connection_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the server does not execute queries, the CA certificate is in PEM format, and the connection string is only present when the account has one. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two tight sentences. It front-loads the returned data, then adds a caveat and a scope note, with no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the non-query behavior, which is good for a read-only credential tool. However, it leaves parameter semantics, especially workspace_id, unexplained and provides no sibling-selection guidance, so it is not fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema describes 'id' as Database ID but leaves workspace_id undocumented, and schema description coverage is only 50%. The description does not mention either parameter or clarify the role or requirement of workspace_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly identifies the resource (database) and the specific payload (address, port, engine, CA certificate, connection string), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or name a sibling tool to distinguish from, but the connection-data focus separates it from get_database and get_database_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_database, get_database_status, or reset_credentials. The statement that the server does not run queries explains behavior but does not help an agent choose among the many database-related sibling tools.

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