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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It thoroughly explains result semantics: overlay entries carry overlay/readOnly/openWrite flags, library entries carry library: true, and local DBs never carry overlay flags. It does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect free, nor mention ordering, pagination, or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences earn their place by explaining the otherwise non-obvious overlay model. It is dense but not wasteful, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It does so completely: it describes the two shared overlays, the meaning of overlay/readOnly/openWrite/library flags, and how library entries differ from writable copies. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret its results.

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. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema covers everything.

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 ('List all Azquo databases') and immediately scopes it to the current user. It goes further by explaining the overlay model and naming the relevant siblings (describe_database, query_aql, copy_from_library), so an agent can distinguish this tool from adjacent listing and access 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to read overlaid library entries in place with describe_database / query_aql and when to use copy_from_library instead ('only when the user actually wants their own writable copy'). This is direct when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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