cluster_monitor_health

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry the behavioral load - and it does, disclosing that problems are ordered worst-first and come with a plain-language explanation each, plus the specific metrics returned (masters/replicas, offline, unrecoverable, orphans, MV_EVENTS). It does not discuss failure modes or empty/unreachable clusters, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the content list. Every clause adds information (ordering, per-database granularity, event source), though the run-on length slightly hurts scannability.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description takes on the job of conveying return content and does so thoroughly, including ordering semantics. It omits any note on degraded/unreachable-cluster behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly does not invent parameter discussion.

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 names a specific resource (cluster health) and enumerates exactly what it reports: node and availability-group state, partition health per database, replication lag, events, license and version. That scope clearly separates it from cluster_monitor_data, cluster_monitor_disk and cluster_monitor_io. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'for the Cluster Monitor's Health tab' gives implied context, and the content list lets an agent infer when this tool is the right one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many cluster_monitor_* siblings, so guidance remains implicit.

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