oracle_mcp_health_report

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 discloses that the operation is a non-mutating aggregated diagnostic and names the checks performed. It does not mention permissions required or whether the check can be slow/rate-limited, which leaves a small gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return value, then the call condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the 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 diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the full picture: what is checked, what is returned (an aggregated health report for self-diagnosis), and when it should and should not be invoked.

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 for the description to clarify beyond confirming it is a self-contained one-shot call.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('One-shot readiness check') and enumerates exactly what it inspects: connectivity, database version, catalog-role, invalid objects, and server configuration. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like test_connection (connectivity only) and get_database_info.

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?

Gives an explicit WHEN TO CALL trigger ('only when the user explicitly asks for a health/readiness check') and a negative exclusion ('do NOT call as a preamble before other work'). This is precisely the routing guidance an agent needs against the many list_*/get_* siblings.

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