check_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies connectivity and returns database/version/schema, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether special credentials are required, or how failures are surfaced.

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 a single, focused sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then lists the return values and the diagnostic use case with no filler or redundant text.

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?

For a zero-parameter connectivity check with no output schema, this description gives sufficient context: what will happen, what will be returned, and why you'd call it. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully described by itself. There is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not invent irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 ('Verifica') and resource ('la conexión a SAP B1 HANA'), and clarifies what it returns: database, version, and current schema. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like execute_query or list_tables, which operate on queries and table listings.

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 a clear context for use: diagnosing the configuration of environment variables. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the diagnostic purpose is enough to distinguish it from the querying and listing siblings.

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