Get Database Status

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose in checking health metrics, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'sync status' entails beyond what annotations cover.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guideline. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could be more comprehensive by detailing the return format or error conditions, which aren't covered by annotations or an output schema.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check database health' with specific metrics (product count, last sync timestamp, sync status). It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('database health'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_availability' or 'sync_products' which might have related purposes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to verify data freshness before searches.' This gives a practical guideline, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'sync_products' for syncing data).

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