List MySQL grants filtered by user or 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. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint (at least one filter must be supplied) that the schema does not enforce, but says nothing about result shape, volume, or what happens with an unknown user/database.

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 action and immediately followed by the hard constraint. The first line largely restates the title, which is the only wasted space.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent still cannot tell what a 'grant' record contains, whether results are scoped by cluster/namespace, or how the required cluster parameter relates to the filters.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies 'user' and 'database' as filters and the one-of requirement; 'cluster' is required yet never explained, and 'namespace' scoping is not addressed in the description at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 MySQL grants') plus the two filtering dimensions, which implicitly separates it from postgres_grants_list and from the mysql_users_list / mysql_databases_list siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the engine and object type are 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?

The second sentence gives a real invocation rule ('At least one of user or database is required; both may be supplied'), which is useful. There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus mysql_user_get, permissions_get, or postgres_grants_list, so usage context is only implied.

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