list_schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful context by explaining the output includes readonly status and how that determines tool availability. It does not contradict annotations. No mention of pagination or limits, but the tool is a simple listing operation with no side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like list for tool availability. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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, an output schema exists (as per context), and sibling tools are numerous, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to use its output for selecting subsequent tools. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds value by describing the output fields (descriptions and readonly status) which aids the agent in interpreting the return value.

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 function: 'List available Oracle connections/schemas with descriptions and readonly status.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource (Oracle connections/schemas) and the output attributes (descriptions, readonly status). This differentiates it from sibling tools like sankhya_list_connections by specifying Oracle and readonly status.

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 usage guidance: 'Use readonly field to determine which tools are available' and then enumerates which tools require readonly=false. This tells the agent when to use this tool (i.e., to discover available connections and subsequently choose an appropriate query/update tool) and how to interpret the output for decision-making.

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