infomaniak_list_public_cloud_database_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the global-or-project scoping behavior, which is useful but does not disclose additional details like pagination, result limits, or auth requirements. The added value is moderate, similar to the high-calibration example.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function and scope without redundancy.

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 (list with two parameters), annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It captures the essential global/project scope, though 'globally' is slightly ambiguous and could be clarified (e.g., 'across all projects in the public cloud'). Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying that project_id filters 'within a project', but it does not explain public_cloud_id's role or provide explicit parameter-level semantics. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not fully bridge the gap left by 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Public Cloud DBaaS services'), and clarifies scope ('globally or within a project'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'get_public_cloud_database_service' which fetches a specific service, and from other list tools for different resource types.

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 implies usage contexts ('globally or within a project') and hints at the optional project_id parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides context but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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