list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a safe, non-destructive read and frames the tool as a starting point, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, permissions, or what the response contains. Adequate for a zero-parameter read, but thin.

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 zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the 'start here' guidance follows immediately.

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-param discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually (the list of registered databases) and where it fits in a workflow. Only minor gaps like result ordering or scale remain.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 the databases registered in Zetaris'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_tables and describe_table. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Start here to see what data is already available' gives a clear entry-point context, telling the agent this is a discovery-first call. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to skip straight to list_tables), so it stops short of a 5.

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