List database records

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 covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that returned items are abbreviated summaries and that unnamed slots are suppressed by default with an includeBlank opt-in. It does not disclose pagination defaults, maximum page size behavior, or total-count/truncation 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core identity of the tool front-loaded before the filtering caveat. Every clause conveys information the agent could not get elsewhere in the definition.

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 five-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs to know: results are summaries and blank entries are filtered by default. Gaps remain around limit/offset semantics and nameContains behavior, which matter given the minimal schema documentation.

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 only 20%, so limit, offset, includeBlank, and nameContains carry no schema-level meaning. The description partially compensates by explaining includeBlank's default suppression semantics and implying limit/offset via '(paginated)', but nameContains and the limit/offset interaction (exclusive vs. inclusive boundaries, effective caps) are left entirely undefined.

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 the resource (record summaries of a given category) and adds a meaningful qualifier that results are summaries, not full records, plus a pagination note. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as database_search_records or database_get_record, leaving the agent to infer which 'list-like' tool to pick.

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 guidance: nothing says to prefer this over database_search_records when filtering by name, or over database_get_record when full detail is needed. The only conditional sentence (blank slots hidden unless includeBlank=true) governs output filtering behavior, not tool selection.

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