Get data checksums status

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds that the tool never raises errors (driver-level errors surface as available=false) and details behavior across PostgreSQL versions. This provides transparency about error handling and version-dependent responses.

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 moderately concise, with clear front-loading of core purpose and an example call. Some details (like exact return fields) could be streamlined, but it remains well-structured and informative.

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 tool has an output schema (context signals), the description explains all return fields and covers version-specific behavior. It is complete in describing what the tool returns and under what conditions, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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% for the single optional database parameter. The description adds context that omitting targets the primary, and explicitly references list_databases for discovering secondary database names, which is helpful beyond the schema definition.

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 reports whether PG 19's online data_checksums toggle is usable and the current setting, adding version-specific behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the data_checksums toggle status, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 context for when to use it (checking online toggle status) and explains behavior on PG ≤18, including pointing to the offline pg_checksums fallback. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the version guidance aids in appropriate use.

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