health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail ('connects lazily'), but does not describe other traits like authentication requirements, timeout behavior, or what a failed check returns.

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 with the key verb first and no filler. Both clauses ('Check one database connection', 'connects lazily') are relevant, though the extreme brevity leaves important details unstated.

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?

For a simple health-check tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be explained), the description still omits critical parameter format details and any usage context. The 0% schema coverage for the only parameter is a notable gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% for the single required 'database' parameter, the description must compensate but does not explain the expected format (e.g., name, connection string, alias). It only implies the parameter selects one database, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('one database connection'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_databases or query_sql, but the health-check intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_sql or list_databases. The description does not state prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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