e2e_list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the resource scope ('in your project') and the full set of supported engines, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, authentication/permission needs, or whether project_id/location are required or defaulted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come first, the engine enumeration follows as useful precision. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It omits what a returned cluster record contains and how the optional location/project_id filters interact, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so both parameters (location, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it never explains how location or project_id scope the listing or what happens when they are omitted (both are optional).

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'List all managed database clusters (DBaaS) in your project,' with an explicit engine enumeration (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, Kafka, Valkey, OpenSearch). It is clearly distinct from get/create/action siblings by the word 'List', but it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent can infer this is the bulk-enumeration tool. There is no statement of when to prefer it over e2e_list_database_plans or e2e_get_database, no prerequisites, and no mention of pagination or filtering conditions.

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