search_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the no-query fallback returns an alphabetical listing, and limit is capped at 50, which the agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by filters, fallback behavior, and pagination. No filler; only the offset clause is slightly under-developed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the parameter explanations, the bounded pagination, and the empty-query behavior, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; only offset semantics remain thin.

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 carry the load, and it mostly does: it defines what query searches, names subject and az_type (accepting name or id), and supplies the max-50 limit constraint that the schema's default-20 lacks. offset is mentioned but not explained, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the A-Z database list) plus the fields searched (name, alternate names, vendor, description). This clearly separates it from search_guides or list_subjects, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

It implies usage by noting that omitting a query lists databases alphabetically and that subject/az_type are the optional filters, which tells the agent how to get a browse-style result. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_database for a single record or list_subjects for discovering filter values.

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