Read a MySQL application database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no mention of what retrieval returns, whether missing databases error or return empty, or any cross-namespace scoping behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so there is no verbosity, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The one sentence duplicates the title and earns no additional information for the agent.

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 three-parameter get tool with no output schema and near-zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what identifier combination is required and what object is returned. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at both inputs and result shape.

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 essentially 0%: 'cluster' and 'database' are bare strings with only pattern/length constraints, and only 'namespace' carries a description via $defs. The description does nothing to explain what 'cluster' identifies (cluster name? ID?) or what form a 'database' value takes, so the two required parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches a single database rather than listing databases, which is exactly the ambiguity mysql_databases_list creates.

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