check

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

The description explicitly says the tool is 'read-only' but also says it 'Saves the report in the profile's history.' Persisting a report to history is a write-like side effect, which contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs runtime, output contents, and persistence behavior. It is dense but not wasteful.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers runtime and the main result categories, though it omits explicit sibling selection guidance and leaves the read-only/history-save tension unresolved.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description mentions operating 'on a profile' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the codeDB Lens health check on a profile.' The output summary (A-F grade, findings, rules without data) further distinguishes it from siblings such as query, compare, or list_rules.

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?

It implies use when a profile-level health check is wanted and gives runtime expectations, but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like compare, describe_table, or explain_rule.

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