togoid_getAllDataset

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the return structure (label, regex, prefix, examples) and clarifying that it returns config rather than data retrieved from databases. It doesn't discuss errors, rate limits, or pagination, but for a parameterless discovery call that's minor. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Organized with a field list and use-case bullets; each sentence adds information. A little verbose with repeated tokens like 'You can use' but I'll keep the structure as a 4 because the redundancy is minor.

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 no-parameter discovery tool it's largely complete: it states the return type and fieldseuristics. It even ties examples to a workflow (testing with countId before bulk conversion) which aids agent planning. Minor gap: it doesn't mention max result size or whether output is localized, but those are minor.

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?

Tool has zero parameters ESA, schema coverage is 100% (empty props), so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly focuses on the return value instead of parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all databases registered in TogoID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like togoid_getDescription or togoid_convertId, which operate on specific entities or conversions. The scope 'all databases' is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

Three concrete use cases are listed: discovering available databases, checking ID formats, and finding sample IDs to test with countId. This gives the agent a clear sense of when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of the full 5.

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