get_database_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does real work by enumerating exactly which database attributes come back (log mode, open mode, role, flashback status), which is the main behavioral question for a metadata read. It says nothing about required privileges, cost, or failure modes, but for a parameterless read-only lookup the risk surface is small.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the scope first and then the payload. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, every listed field earns its place.

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 must describe the return value, and it does so field by field for a parameterless read. Minor gaps remain (value formats for creation date, whether flashback status implies any prerequisite), but an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry meaning and there is nothing to mis-specify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly offers no argument syntax because none exists.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('database-level information') with an explicit inventory of the fields returned (name, creation date, log mode, open mode, role, flashback status). It implicitly separates itself from the instance-level sibling get_instance_info by scoping to 'database-level', though it never names that sibling or any other.

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?

No guidance on when this is the right call versus get_instance_info, get_system_stats, get_parameter, or the health report. The agent must infer from the field list alone that this is a one-shot database identity/settings snapshot.

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