get_database_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does indicate the read-oriented nature via 'Get' and reveals what the tool cocts/returns (status, latency, connection pools). However, it does not disclose side effects, resource intensity of checking all databases, access premissions, or latency units.

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 one concise, well-formed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the most relevant details (PostgreSQL, Redis, connection pools, latency) in the right order.

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?

The operation is simple, requires no parameters, and the description states what will be returned in terms of covered databases and health dimensions (status, connection pools, latency). It could be slightly richer about the output format, but it is adequate for a zero-input monitoring endpoint.

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, and the schema already says none are required. The description does not add parameter details, but with no parameters there is nothing meaningful to explain; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resouce ('Get status of all databases') and gives concrete examples of what is covered (PostgreSQL, Redis, connection pools, latency). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_database_metrics or get_connection_pools that overlap in content.

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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool versus nearby alternatives (e.g., get_database_metrics, get_connection_pools, get_health). There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'preferer another tool if' statements.

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