panelica_remote_mysql_get_v1_remote_mysql_hosts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by stating 'Required scopes: databases:read' and the HTTP method, which helps an agent understand authentication needs and confirm the operation is non-mutating.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every line contributes useful information: the operation, HTTP endpoint, category, required scopes, and read-only nature, with no filler or repetition beyond the minimal annotation overlap.

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-parameter list endpoint, the description covers the essential invocation facts: endpoint, category, required scope, and safe read-only nature. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, this is not a significant gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 opens with 'List remote MySQL hosts', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the operation. It is further reinforced by the HTTP GET endpoint and the read-only designation, which distinguishes it from the sibling POST and DELETE remote MySQL host tools without ambiguity.

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 description implies usage: it is a GET, read-only operation for listing hosts, so an agent can infer it is for viewing rather than creating or deleting. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as panelica_remote_mysql_post_v1_remote_mysql_hosts or specify when not to use this tool.

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