check_database_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what checks run, whether it is read-only, permissions required, cost/latency, or result format. 'Verifica' weakly implies a read-only operation but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the brevity comes at the cost of any scope or behavioral detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a dense set of sibling diagnostic tools, this definition should explain what 'health' covers and how results are returned. It leaves the agent unable to predict behavior or choose it over alternatives.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the two optional parameters (connectionName, includePerformance) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb ('Verifica') and resource ('saúde do banco de dados'), but 'saúde geral' is vague about what is actually checked and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as get_connections_status, test_connection, or analyze_indexes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling diagnostics (test_connection, get_connections_status, check_sensitive_tables). The only implied usage is that it is a health check, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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