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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and 'Health da base' does not disclose any behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether side effects are possible, or what 'health' means in this context.

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 very brief, at four words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It gives a noun phrase with no action, behavior, or expected output, so the brevity does not adequately support an agent.

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?

The tool is simple in terms of inputs, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool does and what the agent should expect. 'Health da base' leaves both the operation and return value undefined, so the description is not complete enough.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is required; this is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 'Health da base' identifies the resource as the database/base and implies a health-check intent, but it lacks a verb that explicitly states what the tool does. It is less ambiguous than a pure tautology because 'da base' scopes the resource, yet it does not clarify whether the tool checks, returns, or monitors health.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not name alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine how to choose between this and tools like list_watches or get_cnpj.

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