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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Input is analyzed in memory and never stored.' It also explains that with unparseable input it returns exact queries. Annotations already mark it as readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description aligns perfectly, adding valuable reassurance.

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 moderately long but well-structured: starts with purpose, lists diagnostics, gives usage cues, then fallback and security note. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Given 7 parameters, output schema, and many siblings, the description covers all key aspects: what the tool does, acceptable inputs, when to use, fallback behavior, and data handling. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed. No gaps identified.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how parameters like ram_gb, cpu_cores, workload are used together for configuration review, and how database_xid_age enables wraparound checks. This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Triage of diagnostics the user runs themselves' and lists specific diagnostic types (pg_stat_user_tables, pg_settings, etc.) and outputs (graded analysis, fixes). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on overall health checks, while siblings handle specific analyses like query or schema change review.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use when the user asks 'is my database healthy', mentions bloat/autovacuum/wraparound/deadlocks, or wants their config or workload reviewed.' Also explains behavior when input is nothing parseable (returns queries to run). This provides clear context and exclusions implicitly via sibling tool list.

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