pg_database_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'gets' a report, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or its performance impact. No details are given about permissions, potential locks, or how the report is generated, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 a single short sentence of 12 words, with no extraneous information. Every word adds value, listing the components of the report. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity of a 'comprehensive' health report covering multiple aspects, the description omits critical context: no output format description, no performance or safety caveats, and no guidance compared to many similar sibling tools. The agent lacks information to fully interpret the tool's output or make informed decisions.

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 100%: the only parameter, connectionId, is fully defined in the schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'comprehensive database health report', listing distinct components (connections, buffer cache, invalid indexes, dead rows, replication). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pg_database_info or pg_sizes_overview, which focus on narrower aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pg_database_info or pg_sizes_overview. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision-making cues.

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