Health Check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the underlying query ('SELECT 1') and that no sensitive details are returned, which signals a safe, non-destructive probe. However, it says nothing about side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the mechanism and the safety note. Every clause earns its place; there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return values, and it correctly avoids this. Combined with the zero-parameter schema, the coverage is nearly complete; only the absence of any when-to-call guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline case where no parameter documentation is required. The description correctly does not burden itself with param details.

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 resources ('server and database availability'), plus the mechanism ('SELECT 1'). This is clearly a connectivity probe, readily distinguishable from the table/row-oriented siblings list_allowed_tables, describe_table, and select_rows.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the pre-flight connectivity probe, but the description never says when to call it versus the sibling query tools, nor whether it should precede other operations. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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