get_database_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only diagnostic that touches external systems. It adds value by naming the subsystems checked, but says nothing about the cost or side effects of a refresh (does it re-query the external statistics endpoint? how long does it take?). Given openWorldHint, that omission is notable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is appropriately short, though the enumerated list is dense enough that the actual purpose ('health check') is only implied rather than stated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the semantics of the only parameter and any guidance on interpretation or when the check should be run — leaving the definition minimally adequate for a single-parameter diagnostic tool.

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?

There is one parameter, 'refresh', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether refresh forces a live re-fetch, clears a cache, or simply returns cached data — a meaningful distinction for a diagnostics call that hits external systems.

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 a specific verb (检查/check) and enumerates the concrete subsystems examined: the online statistics endpoint, cache, source-statistics consistency, and current tool capabilities. It is clearly a diagnostics/health tool, which distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling graph-manipulation tools. Minor mismatch: the name says 'database_status' while the description talks about statistics interfaces and tool capabilities, which could make an agent unsure of scope.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a status check is warranted (e.g., before or after other operations). The single sentence is purely descriptive, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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