overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: each section is 'captured defensively so one failing probe does not sink the rest', i.e. partial-failure resilience and best-effort semantics. That is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a readable enumeration, then a compact Args block. Every element earns its place; only the long mid-sentence list is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content, and it enumerates the snapshot's sections. Combined with the documented parameter and the defensive-capture note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; rate limits or response size are not addressed but are minor here.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default', explaining both what the value is and the default-omission behavior. Full compensation for the single parameter.

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?

States a specific resource and scope ('one-shot server health snapshot') and then enumerates exactly what it aggregates: version, flavor, uptime, connection headroom, sessions by command, longest query, most fragmented table, replica role. This is clearly distinguishable from the single-purpose siblings like server_version, connection_stats, and long_running_queries.

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?

The phrase 'one-shot' and the broad aggregation imply it should be used when an agent wants many health facets at once rather than calling individual probe tools, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is implied, not explicit.

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