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 burden. It states 'return health information' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior when the database is not allowlisted.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and an output schema exists, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding what happens in edge cases or how to choose this over siblings.

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 schema has 0% parameter coverage. The description adds the 'allowlisted' constraint and indicates the parameter is a database name, but does not provide format details or further semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 uses the specific verb 'return' and identifies the resource as 'health information' for an 'allowlisted PostgreSQL database', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_health or get_service_status.

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 that this tool is for PostgreSQL database health, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for a simple health check.

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