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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive/openWorld profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: names are fetched live from Plesk while sizes come from the last turbocheck report and are absent for newly created databases. This data-source and freshness disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and the freshness caveat second. No filler, though the parenthetical could be tightened slightly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: the data source for each field and the caveat that sizes may be missing. The return shape (names plus sizes) is implied but not itemized, which is the only minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'domain' with an example. The description refers to 'einer Domain' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liste der Datenbanken einer Domain ... abrufen') and makes the scope explicit (one domain), so an agent can distinguish it from create_database/delete_database. It does not name a sibling alternative outright, but the parenthetical reference to create_database clarifies its role.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that names are always live 'auch direkt nach create_database' hints at using this to verify state after a create. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for listing databases, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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