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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic health check without revealing what happens on failure (e.g., timeouts, exceptions), whether it performs network I/O, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 one short, action-focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and intent. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool, though it could include additional context without becoming verbose.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is borderline adequate but omits crucial details like expected return values or error behavior. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description to explain what the caller receives, which is not provided. However, the purpose is clear and the parameter is documented in the schema, so it slightly exceeds a minimal viable definition.

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 single parameter 'server' is fully described in the schema ('Target server name (uses default if omitted)'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric. The optional parameter and default behavior are already clear from the schema.

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 clear verb ('Check') and resource ('SQL Server connection health') with a qualifier ('basic responsiveness'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool focused on connectivity/health rather than querying or metadata. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes 'health' (e.g., connectivity, latency, server availability).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios. It does not mention when not to use it or mention any sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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