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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying API endpoint (GET /orgs/{organization}/servers/{server}/database/schemas), which is mild mechanical context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the presence of page_size/page_cursor parameters.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint string is somewhat redundant with the tool's own identity but is compact and plausibly useful for callers who care about the underlying transport.

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 simple read-only list tool with an annotation covering safety and full schema documentation, the description is nearly complete. Only the pagination flow (cursor/size interaction, whether results are paged) is left entirely to the schema.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the page[size]/page[cursor] mappings. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.

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 ('List database schemas on a server'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling list_* tools, none of which touch databases. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it stops 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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or how it relates to forge_list_servers or forge_list_sites. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, which is the minimum guidance at best.

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