db_list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the read-only nature by using 'List' and stating a return type, but it does not explicitly say the operation has no side effects, or describe error behavior or authorization needs. The behavior is largely inferable for a list operation, hence a mid-range score.

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 compact and well-structured with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter list operation.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it lists, the parameter meaning, and the return type. It lacks context such as prerequisites or behavior when database_id is invalid, but these are minor for a straightforward read-only operation and the output schema covers return 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section explains that database_id is 'The database ID or label,' giving it meaningful context as the identifier of the managed instance. This clarifies what the parameter refers to, though it could be more explicit about the distinction between the managed instance and a logical database.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List logical databases within a managed database instance.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from related siblings like db_get_logical_database or db_create_logical_database by framing it as a listing action scoped to a managed instance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as db_get_logical_database or db_list_connection_pools. It also does not mention prerequisites like the managed database instance existing or having access permissions. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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