get_database_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes what the tool returns (table-format information with specific columns) and its read-only nature (prohibited use cases exclude creation/deletion). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like server load impact, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 uses clear section headers but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Retrieve list of all databases' appears twice). The 'Returns' section repeats information already implied in the 'Exact Functionality' section. While well-structured, it could be more concise.

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 has no parameters, has an output schema (mentioned in context signals), and the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage guidelines, return format, and behavioral constraints, it provides complete context for a read-only listing tool. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return value structure.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the empty input structure.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve list of all databases and their basic information on PostgreSQL server' with specific details about what information is included (owner, encoding, size, connection limit). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_table_list or get_database_schema_info by focusing only on database-level metadata.

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 explicit 'Required Use Cases' (when user requests database list, needs to check existing databases, or needs size/owner info) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' (requests for tables/schemas inside databases, creation/deletion operations, or permission/security requests). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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