list_profiles

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. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with 'Never shows passwords' — a disclosure about credential masking in the response that no structured field states. It doesn't mention ordering or whether disabled profiles are included, so 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it lists, when to call it, and a security caveat. The most important routing instruction is placed before the caveat, and nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 zero-param discovery tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about what comes back (profile list plus default marker) and what is deliberately withheld (passwords). It stops short of describing the shape of each entry — e.g. whether names or IDs are returned — which an agent would need to chain into subsequent calls.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and complete. Baseline 4 applies since no semantic work is needed here.

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?

A specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('configured database profiles (connections)'), and it names the key payload detail ('which one is the default'). The line 'Call this first if you are unsure which database to query' separates it cleanly from list_databases, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition for invocation: call it first when the target database is unknown. The inverse condition (skip it when you already know the connection) is left implicit, and no named alternatives are offered, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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