List Databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value by mentioning the connected instance scope, pagination behavior, and that it returns state and recovery information. It doesn't disclose additional caveats like whether an active connection is required, but the connected instance phrase implies a prerequisite.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase ('Read-only', 'Supports pagination') adds relevant information without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and complete parameter schema, the description is largely sufficient. It mentions the return content (state and recovery info) and pagination, though without an output schema it could be slightly more explicit about the overall return shape or permission requirements. Still, it covers the essentials for a straightforward read-only listing tool.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, response_format) with 100% coverage. The description only adds 'Supports pagination,' which is already evident from the limit/offset schema, so it does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's action ('Lists all databases'), resource ('databases'), and scope ('on the connected SQL Server instance'), while also specifying the content ('with state and recovery information'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mssql_list_schema_objects or mssql_get_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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: after connecting to a SQL Server instance, when you need a list of databases with state and recovery info. It includes 'Read-only' and 'Supports pagination' which guide usage, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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