list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hierarchical navigation behavior and mentions the 'FDW Flights' database example, which adds context. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'navigate').

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 appropriately sized with three focused paragraphs: purpose/usage, example database, and parameter/return explanations. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'FDW Flights' example could be more integrated. The structure is logical with front-loaded navigation guidance.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, hierarchical navigation), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return scope. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on navigation behavior rather than output details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'ems_system_id: EMS system ID (from list_ems_systems)' and 'group_id: Group ID to navigate into (omit for root).' It adds meaningful context about parameter relationships and sources, though it doesn't provide format details or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Navigate the database hierarchy' with specific guidance on root vs. subgroup navigation. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hierarchy navigation rather than querying (query_database) or searching (search_analytics). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_ems_systems which might be related.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Call without group_id for root level' and 'Group ID to navigate into (omit for root).' It implies usage for exploring database structure rather than querying content. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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