panelica_databases_get_v1_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the required scope 'databases:read' and restates 'Read-only', which provides some authentication context not present in the annotations. It doesn't go deeper into pagination or response behavior, but for a simple read-only list that is acceptable.

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?

The description is extremely compact and every line earns its place: operation, HTTP method, category, required scope, and read-only status. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 parameterless read-only list endpoint, the description provides the essential call information: endpoint, HTTP method, auth scope, and safety. It leaves return-shape and pagination details implicit, but the annotations and overall simplicity make the tool callable without those details.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description correctly provides no extraneous parameter-related text.

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 clearly and specifically states the operation ('List databases') on the databases resource, which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool that fetches a single database by ID, but the verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as panelica_databases_get_v1_databases_id or the database creation tool. No conditions, exclusions, or 'use X instead' hints are provided. The phrase 'List databases' implies enumeration, but that is minimal and not enough to route an agent effectively.

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