list_databases

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (Dict with success, databases, message) and permissions requirement ('Query Data Lake'), which are not covered by annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or side effects, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient for good transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by return details and permissions. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains the output format, and the third specifies permissions. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, with output schema provided), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, output structure, and permissions, which are essential for an agent to use it correctly. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately addresses the tool's context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on output and permissions. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available datalake databases in Panther'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_database_tables' or 'list_data_models', which would require mentioning what this tool does NOT do (e.g., list tables within databases).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions permissions ('Query Data Lake'), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with related tools like 'list_database_tables' for table-level listing or 'query_data_lake' for querying data. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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