mdb_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the session-dependent branching, but says nothing about failure behavior, required permissions, latency, or what a successful versus failed health check looks like — meaningful gaps for a diagnostic tool with zero 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded before the conditional. The quoted nested 'database="config_label"' is slightly awkward to parse but costs little.

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 one-optional-parameter diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essential decision (session vs config label). The only missing piece an agent might want is what happens on connectivity failure, which is minor for a health check.

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% and the single parameter already documents the config-label format and the dynamic-session exception, so the description largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new syntax or edge-case detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Test connectivity') and a concrete outcome ('return MonetDB version'), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not name mdb_connect or mdb_list_databases as the alternative for session setup vs discovery, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 second sentence gives a real conditional ('Omit database if dynamic session active; otherwise pass database="config_label"'), but that is parameter-selection guidance rather than when-to-call guidance. Nothing says when to prefer this over mdb_connect or mdb_list_databases, which an agent choosing among nine mdb_* siblings would want.

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