plan_health_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Review' aligns with these. The description does not add extra behavioral context such as permission requirements, performance impact, or return format, so it neither contradicts nor significantly enhances the annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the key review areas without any fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 read-only review tool with a detailed output schema and full parameter documentation, the description sufficiently conveys the scope of what is covered. However, it could have been slightly more complete by explicitly noting that it aggregates multiple analysis areas or by providing a hint about when to use it, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, with top_n, database_name, and window_minutes each having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 'Review' and clearly enumerates the covered areas: Query Store health, parameter sensitivity, regressions, forced-plan failures, and ranked force/unforce candidates. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like detect_parameter_sniffing or detect_regressed_queries, hence not a 5.

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 implies usage for a comprehensive Query Store health review, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus specialized alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the scope of the review.

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