Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by noting it is 'safe to call at any time' and specifying the return content (server address, database name, pool metrics), which are not fully covered by annotations alone. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: one main sentence plus two short clarifiers. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and conveys all necessary information without waste.

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 status tool with a provided output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and its safety. Annotations and output schema handle the rest, making it complete for the agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter discussion.

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 returns the current connection status, server address, database name, and connection pool metrics. This uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools that handle connections, queries, or schema operations.

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 clear context by saying it is read-only and safe to call at any time, implying it can be used as a diagnostic check without side effects. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes when-to-use obvious.

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