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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence adds nothing beyond structured data. The description does add real value elsewhere by disclosing the shape of the result (per-proxy state, processes, versions, open incidents, deterministic findings) and by noting findings are deterministic and doc-linked. It does not discuss cost, latency, or whether missing proxies appear as 'never_seen', which would matter operationally.

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 tight sentence with the key content front-loaded; nothing is padded. The closing 'Read-only' fragment is redundant with the annotations and is the only wasted clause.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing the return contents and does so concretely. The remaining gap is modest: it does not clarify scope (one database vs all) or how findings relate to incidents, but the schema covers the scoping side.

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% and the single optional database_id already explains its scoping and points at setup_status for discovery. The description says nothing about the parameter or about the default all-databases behavior, so it neither adds meaning nor creates confusion.

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 precisely (TCP proxy) and enumerates what is reported: state, processes and versions, open health incidents, and findings. The enumerated state vocabulary (healthy, silent, delayed, dropping, never_seen) makes it unmistakable and no sibling covers the same ground. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, which slightly weakens it, but the purpose is still clear.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as check_sql, explain_block, or show_report, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent can infer it is a diagnostic read for proxy problems, but nothing in the text routes it against the sibling set.

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