list_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description's 'this is read-only' adds nothing new. What it does contribute beyond the structured fields is the paging model ('one page', page/per_page control pagination), which warns the agent that results are partial rather than exhaustive. It says nothing about ordering, total counts, or what happens if the server has no databases.

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 action and scope before the usage hint. The only wasted phrase is the read-only claim, which merely repeats the annotations; everything else 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: it conveys scope, pagination semantics, the ID-discovery purpose, and the optional host metadata. A brief note that results are capped at 25 per page and that further pages must be requested would close the remaining gap for an agent reasoning about completeness of results.

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%, including defaults, min/max bounds, and the WISP_SERVER_ID fallback for server_id, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that page/per_page drive pagination and that host metadata is optional, which is essentially a paraphrase of the schema rather than added meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List one page of databases attached to a server'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the destructive siblings like create_database, delete_database, and rotate_database_password. It does not explicitly name a competing alternative, but the read/list scope is clear enough that an agent can select it without inspecting siblings.

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?

It states a concrete use case: 'Use to discover database IDs and optionally host metadata,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer server_details for a single database), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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