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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by naming the diagnostic fields (enabled, status, synced_at, last_error) and the read-only nature of the mirror. It does not explain what the status values mean or what to do on last_error, which keeps it below a 5.

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 diagnostic purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the view list plus example query are genuinely useful rather than filler. The opening sentence is long and packs the field list, view list, and schema name together, making it denser than ideal.

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 carries return-shape duty and does so by enumerating the fields and the readable views. Missing is interpretation guidance (what enabled/status values mean, typical last_error causes), which matters for a health-check tool.

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 in_workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions in_workspace or the session-vs-override behavior, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Show whether this workspace's read-only platform-data mirror is on') and then enumerates the exact fields returned plus the views exposed in schema dialogbrain_v1. It is clearly distinguishable from db_mirror (enable), db_query (read), and db_schema (introspect) among the large sibling set.

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 routes the agent: 'Turn it on with db.mirror' names the alternative for the enable case, and the db.query example implies this tool is the prerequisite check before querying. It stops short of saying what to do when status is unhealthy or how it differs from db_schema.

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