gcfr_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what action is performed, the scope (both GCFR view databases), and the return fields (status, database names, stream_count, response_time_ms). It does not discuss edge cases such as failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter health check this is largely sufficient.

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 main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a practical usage hint and returned fields. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 zero parameters, a clear one-sentence purpose, a usage trigger, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool. It is complete and appropriately scoped for a health-check utility.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return fields rather than parameter documentation, since there are no parameters to explain.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the MCP server can reach both GCFR view databases.' It clearly identifies the tool as a health check and distinguishes it from sibling status/process tools by focusing on server-database connectivity rather than stream or process state.

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 gives explicit situational guidance: 'Run this first if tools are returning errors.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for routing.

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