database_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Check' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, return format, or failure behavior. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the purpose. There is zero wasted wording, making it extremely efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about what constitutes a healthy check or what the output indicates, but for a read-only health check of a database connection, it provides a clear enough scope.

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 input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not contradict the schema, so this score is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Check the selected database backend and its connection.' This is a specific verb (check) with a specific resource (database backend and connection), and it clearly distinguishes from sibling product CRUD tools.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to verify database health. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. With only one sentence, it provides no exclusions or alternative references.

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