List databases (plans, sections, layouts ...)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: the conditional layout payload (Layout Book guid, layoutId, master layout, sheet dimensions in meters), that includeViews augments results per database, and that it also returns the current database/window. The localization caveat is a useful operational note. It stops short of exhaustively describing the result shape, hence not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the return payload, then the downstream-use routing and the includeViews behavior. The parenthetical type enumerations and 'Russian Archicad' aside are dense but each sentence carries information; slightly verbose but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does so well: database fields, layout-specific fields, view augmentation, and the current window. Minor gaps remain (no pagination or result-size guidance, incomplete coverage of search/navigatorItems behavior), but it is largely self-sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents types, search, navigatorItems, includeViews and includeLayoutInfo. The description only meaningfully elaborates on includeViews (why its views matter for place_drawing) and layout info; the other parameters get no additional semantics in prose. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Archicad databases') and enumerates exactly which artifacts count as databases (floor plan, sections, layouts, master layouts, etc.). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_navigator_tree or list_views.

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?

It gives strong downstream context: the returned databaseRef/navigatorItemGuid values are what place_drawing, get_layout_drawings, update_drawings and export tools consume, and includeViews is pitched as 'the best sources for place_drawing'. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over lookalike siblings such as get_navigator_items or list_views, nor any exclusions.

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