get_sql_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format and mentions that type inference occurs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, authentication needs, or how conflicting arguments like both lakehouse and warehouse being provided are handled.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is concise overall, though documenting a 'ctx' parameter that is absent from the input schema adds minor confusion and could mislead callers.

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?

The description covers the parameters and return value, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it omits important calling constraints: whether lakehouse and warehouse are mutually exclusive, what happens if neither is provided, and what errors may occur. This leaves the tool minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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's parameter list adds essential meaning. It explains workspace, lakehouse, and warehouse as names or IDs, and type as 'lakehouse' or 'warehouse' with inference when omitted. It does not define constraints such as mutual exclusivity or the minimum set of required arguments, but it compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a concrete action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('SQL endpoint for a specified lakehouse or warehouse'). This clearly communicates what the tool does and is distinguishable from generic list or schema tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_lakehouse, list_warehouses, or sql_query. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision rules are provided; the only usage signal is implied by the purpose statement.

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