check_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool reports (freshness, row-count movement, null rates, dbt test results, one-line verdict) and how to act on the verdict, which goes beyond a vague 'checks health'. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, but the nature of the tool implies a safe inspection. This is solid but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear usage guidance, a concise list of reported metrics, interpretation instructions, and the parameter description. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema, the description provides ample context: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (including specific metrics and verdict), and how to interpret results. It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args section: 'table: Table name, fully qualified or bare.' This adds format guidance beyond the bare type of 'string' in the schema, giving the agent enough to construct a valid call.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a table is safe to rely on right now.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_tables, describe_table, and trace_lineage, which address different concerns (discovery, structure, lineage).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before presenting any number derived from a table you have not already checked, and whenever a user mentions a table you did not choose yourself.' It also explains how to interpret verdicts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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