health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that counts are approximate and that the tool reports DB connectivity and runtime configuration, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though the name and purpose strongly imply a safe, non-mutating probe.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main action, the second details the returned information, and the third gives the intended use case. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 no-parameter health check with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without needing additional context.

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, so the empty input schema fully covers invocation needs and no parameter documentation is required. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately high.

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 a specific action and resource: checking server health and returning runtime configuration. It also frames the tool as a pre-query orientation step, which separates it from retrieval-focused siblings like retrieve_evidence and get_document. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_index_status, whose name also suggests a status-checking role.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is useful for AI agents to orient themselves before querying, giving a clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but for a zero-parameter health check that is a minor gap.

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