db_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by stating the tool is a service/inspection call, clarifying it accepts no parameters, and explaining what data boundaries it reveals. It stops short of explicitly saying it is read-only or describing the response structure, but the output schema covers return-format details.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence packs the substantive status contents, the second gives the usage rationale, and the final short clause confirms zero parameters. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool, this is complete: it tells the agent what data it will receive, why it matters, and when to invoke it relative to other work. The existence of an output schema compensates for any missing return-format details.

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, so the schema already fully describes the input contract. The description reinforces this with the explicit statement that it takes no parameters, which is sufficient 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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: it provides status information about the database. It enumerates the exact contents (counts of vacancies/employers/skills, embedding index status, model, data period, last collection time). This differentiates it from the sibling search/analytics tools and leaves little ambiguity about its role.

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 description explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool at the beginning of work to understand data boundaries and avoid fabricating vacancies or statistics. While it does not name alternatives or specify when not to use it, the directive is concrete and actionable for a preflight status check.

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