get_connection_pool_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifically scopes the operation to MCP-side (not touching the database) and mentions leak detection. No contradiction exists.

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?

Exactly two compact sentences. The first sentence packs the core purpose and key metrics; the second adds the use case and safety guarantee. No filler or redundancy – every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, what metrics it reports, and when it should be used. The output schema handles return value detail, so nothing essential is missing.

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 appropriately does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters and instead focuses on output semantics, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get MCP server connection pool statistics') and enumerates exact metrics (per-database acquire/release/discard counts, peak utilization, possible leaks), clearly distinguishing it from database-side diagnostic tools. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Diagnoses MCP-side slowness without touching the database' provides clear context for when to use this tool (MCP-side performance issues) and a safety consideration, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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