Audit database

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds detailed behavioral context: what is scanned (memory, checkpoints, etc.), the return object structure, and health categories. 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 a single informative paragraph that efficiently lists scan areas and the return object. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundancy, though slightly dense.

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 the complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, scanning scope, and return structure. The output schema is referenced but not detailed, which is acceptable since it exists separately.

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 33% (only database parameter has description). The description adds context for log_table as 'optionally scanning custom logging tables,' but does not explain schema or provide format details for the 3 parameters, leaving gaps.

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 it runs a comprehensive DBA-level database audit over a specified schema, listing specific areas like memory, checkpoints, and contention locks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower analyses.

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?

While the description mentions optional secondary database targeting and lists what it scans, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus simpler checks like check_database_health or other analytical siblings.

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