Pro runtime health and IDB stats

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description's main added value is scope: it reports both server liveness and current IDB state. It does not disclose whether the probe touches/initializes the database, what 'ready' means, or how instance scoping affects results — modest but real added context over the annotation.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the tool is simple (zero required params). The description covers both facets of the probe adequately; only the interaction with instance_id and the meaning of 'ready' remain unstated, which are minor for a health check.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single instance_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (optional, defaults to the current target). The description never mentions instance selection, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('MCP server' plus 'IDB state') and a clear verb ('Health/ready probe'), so an agent can tell this apart from the analysis-oriented siblings at a glance. It is clear, though it does not explicitly state that no sibling overlaps this function — which is obvious only from the sibling list.

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?

Calling this as a health/readiness probe is strongly implied by the phrasing, but the description gives no explicit 'use this before X' or 'do not use this for Y' guidance. It also does not mention the alternative of list_databases, which also reports IDB information, so the agent must infer the division of labor.

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