list_datacenters

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

The tool already carries readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail: default depth=1 yields names and basic properties, so the agent knows bare calls return shallow data. This adds context, though it largely duplicates the depth parameter's own schema description; pagination, ordering, and result-size behavior for large accounts remain undisclosed.

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 deliver purpose first, then the key behavioral default. Every word adds value; no fluff, no repetition of schema details, and the most important scoping information (the default depth behavior) comes second.

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-required-param read-only list operation with a self-documenting schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers its bases: upfront purpose and default behavior. The only real gap is pagination or limit handling for accounts with many datacenters, which would round out the operational picture.

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 100% — the depth param's range/default and the filters object with its typo-silently-returns-empty warning are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'depth=1' reinforces the schema but doesn't add parameter meaning beyond it, which aligns with the baseline-3 expectation for fully covered schemas.

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 'List all virtual data centers' uses a specific verb and resource, and 'all' signals collection-level behavior versus the singular get_datacenter sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast the sibling tool to differentiate, so the distinction relies on the reader inferring from naming conventions rather than explicit guidance.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With a near-identical get_datacenter sibling available, an agent receives no explicit help choosing between listing all datacenters versus retrieving a single one — the very decision this field should support.

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