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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the operation is 'passwordless' and rides the same local-client path as data_query, which tells the agent it needs no credentials and shares connection semantics with a known sibling.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the qualifiers (passwordless, path) trailing. No wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations and full parameter coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose, connection behavior, and scope. Only an explicit note on the shape of the returned listing would improve it.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (host, engine enum with default, database incl. sqlite path, username default), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the notion of a single server, so 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 (list) plus resource (tables/collections/keys of a database) and scopes it to 'one of your servers.' This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like data_query (which retrieves rows) and data_schema (which describes structure).

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 phrase 'over the same local-client path as data_query' implies this is a companion discovery step to querying, but it never explicitly says when to use this vs data_schema or gives a when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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