list_schemas

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is done. The description still earns credit by disclosing behavior the annotations do not: results are privilege-filtered to the read login, system schemas are suppressed, and pages are capped at 100 rows.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the scope filter and the page-size constraint with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing important buried.

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?

Appropriate for a simple two-parameter listing tool: an output schema handles return shape and annotations handle safety, so the description only needs scope and pagination, which it supplies. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or what happens when the cursor expires.

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 100%, and both parameters (cursor with first-page guidance, database with an enum) are documented in the schema itself. The description's "100 per page" gives indirect context for pagination but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 schemas") plus two scope qualifiers that matter operationally: only schemas the read login may access, and system schemas excluded. The resource name alone separates it from siblings like list_tables and list_databases, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and scope (use to enumerate schemas before describing or querying tables), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no note about whether to call this before list_tables. Adequate but relies on inference.

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