Get wait for LSN status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: it never raises, reports standby status, and describes fallback behavior on PG ≤ 18. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise, front-loads the main purpose, includes an example, and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers behavior across PG versions, error handling, and return fields. Since an output schema exists, the description need not elaborate on return values; it lists them briefly. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with adequate description for the database parameter. The description does not add new information beyond the schema; it includes an example showing parameter omission. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 WAIT FOR LSN is usable, and also reports standby status. It uses specific verbs and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like wait_for_lsn (which performs the wait) and get_current_wal_lsn.

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 indicates when to use (to check usability), mentions behavior on older PG versions (available=false with fallback), and notes it never raises. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools but implies usage context well.

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