stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what information the tool exposes, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or what the exact return format will be, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, efficiently front-loaded sentence. 'Database health' immediately frames the tool's purpose, followed by a compact list of concrete output elements. There is no repetition, filler, or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description gives a good sense of what the agent will receive: source path, counts, date range, and sending status. It is sufficient for an agent to decide to call the tool and interpret its results at a high level. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape, but the current description is functionally complete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs. The description focuses on the output, which is appropriate here.

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 identifies the tool as a database health readout and enumerates the returned aspects: source path, counts, date range, and sending status. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/search tools by focusing on aggregate health stats rather than individual chats, messages, or contacts. However, it uses a noun phrase ('Database health') rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 implies the tool is for checking overall database health, which is enough for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool. It gives no explicit when-to-use direction or mention of alternatives, but the context makes the intended use reasonably clear. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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