sd_check_database_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the check action and return shape (DatabaseStatus object), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens on failure. It implies a safe health check but lacks explicit disclosure of side effects.

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 uses clear section headers for PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, and Returns. There is minor redundancy between the opening line and the PURPOSE statement, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 0-parameter health check, the description covers the purpose, usage scenarios, and return value sufficiently. It could further clarify which database it checks and any permission requirements, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and simplicity.

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 input schema confirms this. The description correctly adds no parameter information, matching the baseline for 0-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states 'Check if the database is reachable and responsive' and includes a PURPOSE line that clarifies connectivity verification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool mop_check_database_connection, relying on the name prefix for context.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides concrete scenarios: when other tools fail unexpectedly, to verify setup, and for health monitoring. This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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