list_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: system schemas are filtered out by default, which explains why results may look incomplete. It says nothing about the profile scoping (connected user vs. what 'profile' selects) or result ordering/limits.

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?

Two short sentences, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant fact (default system-schema hiding) is front-loaded right after the purpose. Nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what a returned database entry looks like or whether pagination applies. Combined with the undocumented 'profile' parameter, an agent knows how to call the tool but not how results are shaped or what 'profile' changes — gaps that matter for a discovery-root tool.

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 carry the parameter burden. It fully explains include_system ('System schemas are hidden unless include_system=true'), including the default behavior, which is real value beyond the schema. However, the 'profile' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the databases") plus a scope qualifier ("visible to the connected user"), which an agent can act on directly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_tables or list_profiles, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the "visible to the connected user" framing, but the description never says when to call this versus list_tables, list_profiles, or search_schema. No prerequisites, no ordering guidance, no exclusions are given, so the agent must infer the entry point of a discovery workflow.

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