Verify connection & read-only status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the internal check set and the reported outcome, and the absence of parameters implies a safe, non-mutating probe. However, it does not state failure behavior (exception vs. reported failure), idempotency, or required permissions for the verification itself.

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 sentences, no filler, with the reported content front-loaded and the usage trigger placed last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on explaining the return content (checks run, pass/fail, detected privileges), which it does well. It stops short of describing error/failure modes or what to do after a failed verification, a minor gap for a diagnostic tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter-related confusion is possible.

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 (verify the database connection) and precisely enumerates what is reported: which checks ran (server roles, database roles, effective permissions), which passed, and any detected write privileges. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-access tools (list_tables, describe_table, sample_rows, run_query).

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this to diagnose why the server refuses to expose query tools.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name or exclude alternatives explicitly, but the sibling set makes the boundary obvious.

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