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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it returns each service ID and explaining that those IDs are inputs for backup/restore. It does not cover pagination, auth, or rate limits, but the added return-value context is meaningful 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the concrete downstream use. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant or filler language.

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 a simple one-parameter list operation with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names what is listed, the return payload (service IDs), and the intended consumer tools. Minor gaps like pagination or output format are acceptable here.

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%, so the single optional deploymentId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own explanation, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the weight.

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) and resource (database services, with examples like postgres, mysql, redis, mongo) and scopes it to services provisioned alongside deployments. This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling nexusai_managed_db_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says to use this tool to discover the serviceId required by nexusai_db_backup, nexusai_db_restore, and related tools. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative list tool.

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