analyze_db_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'operational' qualifier and the performance-triage exclusion, but these are more about scope than behavioral traits like return format or edge cases. It doesn't contradict annotations, but the added value beyond annotations is modest.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately redirecting to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description is sufficient for a health-analysis tool. It doesn't explicitly enumerate health dimensions, but the input schema's health_type parameter covers that. The main gap is the absence of broad usage context, but it's not critical given the available structured information.

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 schema description coverage is 67%, with health_type and database_name having descriptions. The description itself does not add parameter details, leaving decision_id undocumented beyond its default null. Since the schema covers most parameters adequately and the missing one is optional, the description adds marginal value but doesn't fully compensate for the gap.

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 tool's purpose as analyzing operational Azure SQL database health, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from collect_performance_evidence by explicitly noting that query-performance triage belongs to that alternative tool, ensuring the agent can differentiate between them.

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 an explicit exclusion: 'Query-performance triage belongs to collect_performance_evidence', which tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the correct alternative. However, it doesn't offer broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other health-related siblings, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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