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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is passwordless, uses the same local-client path as data_query, and is engine-agnostic by listing tables, collections, or keys. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the appended context about passwordless access and the local-client path is relevant. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and rich read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the connection method, the conceptual return value, and the cross-engine scope. It does not specify exact output shape or error behavior, but that is largely implicit for a list operation.

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 all four parameters already documented meaningfully in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. It stays at the baseline because it offers no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List the tables / collections / keys of a database on one of your servers.' This makes the tool's function obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like data_query, though the phrase 'same local-client path as data_query' references a sibling without stating the differentiator.

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 description implies when to use it: when a listing of database tables/collections/keys is needed. It provides context about how access occurs ('passwordless, over the same local-client path as data_query'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as data_query or sftp_list.

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