health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does (check if server is running, can reach DuckDB, report guardrail config) and implies read-only behavior through 'Verify' and 'report'. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data', but the health-check nature and reported fields are transparent enough. Could add explicit read-only confirmation, but the description is informative.

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 two sentences: the first gives specific technical details, the second gives direct usage guidance. Every sentence carries weight; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose first.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple health check), the description is complete. It explains what is verified (server, DuckDB connection), what is reported (guardrails: row limits, timeout, DB path), and when to use it. No additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 covers this completely (100% coverage with an empty properties object). There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description mentions the report fields, which indirectly clarifies what the tool returns.

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 states the verb 'Verify' and the specific resource (OmniData database server, DuckDB reachability, guardrail configuration). It is highly specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_datasets or run_sql_query by focusing on connection health and configuration status.

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 clear context: 'Use this first to confirm the MCP connection is alive.' This gives explicit usage timing (before other tools). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but the instruction 'first' is strong guidance. Missing explicit alternative names prevents a 5.

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