list_databases

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful scoping context—'configured' and 'available to this MCP server'—which clarifies that this is not a list of all databases on the Azure SQL instance, but only those wired into the server.

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 says everything needed without redundancy. The description is appropriately concise for a trivial listing operation.

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 listing tool, the description is fully sufficient: it states the object (databases), the scope (configured and available), and the safety profile is covered by annotations. An output schema also exists, so return values are documented elsewhere.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not elaborate on parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add anything.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured Azure SQL databases'), with a clear scope ('available to this MCP server'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_schemas and list_objects, which target database objects, not databases.

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 (to see which databases are available) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool the context is reasonably clear.

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