schema_explorer_databases

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the mention of table/view counts, which hints at the returned shape in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or scope limits (all databases vs. a connection), which for a listing tool would be worth one more clause.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most useful information (what is listed and what comes with it) appears immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only signal about return values, and it does name the returned counts, which is the right instinct. It stops short of describing the full result shape or how this feeds into the sibling tables/table/preview tools.

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 beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List databases') plus added value ('with table/view counts') and an app scope ('for the Schema Explorer app'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_databases or explain its relationship to schema_explorer_tables, so an agent still has to infer which lister to pick.

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 phrase 'for the Schema Explorer app' implies this is the entry point to the schema_explorer_* family, which is weak but real usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative list_databases tool, so routing between the two remains ambiguous.

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