overview

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag is redundant. The genuinely additive detail is that each section is captured defensively so a failing probe does not sink the rest, telling the agent to expect partial results and a possibly degraded snapshot. It does not mention permissions, cost, or rate limits, but the partial-result disclosure is real value beyond the annotation.

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 read tag and the snapshot purpose, then the return content, then args. The enumerated section list is long but every item is informative rather than padding, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of describing returns — and it enumerates the sections returned plus the defensive partial-result behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it says nothing about the shape/format of each section or ordering.

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% and the schema only shows 'target' as a nullable string, so the description has to carry the semantics — and it does: 'Target name from config; omit for the default' explains the value's origin and the default behavior. It stops short of naming where config targets come from or listing valid values, keeping it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 verb+resource up front ('One-shot cluster health snapshot') and then enumerates the exact signals returned (uptime, connections by state, idle-in-transaction, longest query, worst dead-tuple table, standby replay lag). This aggregate framing distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings like list_activity, server_version, and replication_status without opening any schema.

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 'one-shot' framing implies a quick overall health check, and the enumerated content implies it aggregates what siblings cover piecemeal, but the description never states when to use it versus those siblings (e.g. use overview for a quick triage, then drill into long_running_queries or replication_status). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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