Readiness (database, queue); 503 when failing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral value by disclosing that failure is signalled via HTTP 503 and that the probe covers database and queue dependencies, but it omits what a success response contains, whether per-dependency detail is returned, and whether failures include diagnostic messages.

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?

It is a single front-loaded line with no filler, and the endpoint notation is the most compact possible way to convey the route. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is the safer failure mode for a probe.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema health probe the definition covers the essentials: what is checked and how failure manifests. What it lacks is the success condition and any hint of return payload shape, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No gaps in parameter meaning remain.

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 identifies the resource as a readiness probe and names the two dependencies checked (database, queue), plus the failure signal (503). However, it is essentially the title restated with the endpoint path appended, and it never contrasts itself with the sibling ops_health tool, so an agent cannot tell which probe to call from the text alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus ops_health, no indication of whether it is meant for pre-deploy gating, polling, or incident triage, and no mention of call frequency or caching. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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