list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that only databases 'visible to this integration' are returned, and it explains the alias semantics: aliases can resolve to not-yet-visible databases and remain usable as a 'ref'. It also indicates the output shape and the null-title edge case, which is valuable beyond the raw operation name.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and output shape, the second defines 'alias', and the third covers the important edge case. Every sentence contributes information without verbosity.

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-parameter listing tool with an existing output schema, the description is effectively complete. It covers access scope, output fields, alias semantics, and the edge case where an alias does not match a visible database. Nothing critical appears to be missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is little to explain. Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema is empty, meaning no parameter ambiguity exists. The description adds meaningful context about alias resolution that an agent needs when working with database references.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List Notion databases visible to this integration.' It also specifies the output shape '{title, url, alias}', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like query_database or get_page, which operate on a single database or page rather than listing all visible 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 implies the tool is for enumerating available databases, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose it over alternatives such as search or get_database_schema. There is no exclusion guidance or sibling comparison. The usage context is clear enough for a simple listing tool, but not fully specified.

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