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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, rate limits) but does not contradict annotations, so it meets the lowered bar.

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 sentences, direct and free of redundant information. Efficiently conveys the core functionality and an additional capability.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention return format or error behavior, but for a simple list operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%). The description explains project_ids as for batch execution but leaves project_id undefined. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate more fully; it only partially does.

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?

Clearly states it lists all extensions in the database, distinguishing it from other list operations (e.g., list_branches, list_tables). The mention of bulk support adds specificity.

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?

Provides some guidance on bulk usage (project_ids for batched execution) but does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool over alternatives or when to choose single vs. batch mode. Lacks explicit exclusionary language.

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