list_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: results are permission-scoped to the caller and paginated at 25 per page, which directly affects how an agent must loop. It does not mention termination conditions or total counts, but an output schema exists to cover return shape.

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, zero filler, and the core identity (what is listed and under what access scope) is front-loaded before the pagination and hand-off details. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers access scope, page size, and how to reuse the returned values downstream. It is nearly complete; only the lack of explicit ordering relative to the other list_* tools leaves a small 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single cursor parameter is already documented as 'the nextCursor of the previous page.' The description's '25 per page' adds useful page-size context that shapes cursor looping, but it adds no new meaning about the cursor parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists the databases') plus an access qualifier ('the caller may use'), which cleanly separates it from list_schemas and list_tables in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the hierarchy rather than being told.

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 downstream usage ('Pass an object's value as database to the other tools'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never states when to call this versus list_schemas/list_tables, nor that this is the entry point before schema or table discovery — that ordering is only implied.

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