get_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return contents (sync state, tasks, warnings, scheduling) but does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists key return components and usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, existing output schema), the description adequately covers intent, return contents, and usage context. It does not explain error scenarios or required permissions, but for a get-status operation this is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (connection_id). The tool description adds no further meaning or examples beyond this, so it meets the baseline expectation but provides no extra value.

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 the tool retrieves detailed status for a specific Fivetran connection and lists the types of information returned (sync state, tasks, warnings, scheduling). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_connection_schema or test_connection, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this over alternatives.

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 explicitly states the tool is for 'investigating connection issues and understanding sync status,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios, such as testing connectivity with test_connection.

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