Get SQL Agent Alerts Health

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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing the exact severity triggers (823/824/825, severities 19-25), the operator-receipt check, and the conditional escalation to CRITICAL when msdb.dbo.suspect_pages has rows. This is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the scope then layer severity logic and platform caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is somewhat packed and could be marginally tighter.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description explains what is checked and reported (alerts and operators) and the severity model. It could briefly note the return shape, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema needing explanation and the description adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 and resource: checks SQL Agent alerts for corruption errors 823/824/825 and severities 19-25, verifies an enabled operator receives them, and lists all alerts and operators. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mssql_agent_jobs and mssql_agent_failed_jobs.

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 makes the use case clear (auditing alert coverage for high-severity/corruption conditions) and gives a hard scoping exclusion: 'Not available on Azure SQL Database.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when to prefer this over job-focused siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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