fastbcp_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them while adding genuinely new context: no database connectivity is required. It stops short of describing the shape or volume of the returned information, but for a static info tool that is a minor omission.

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?

Two sentences: the capability list is front-loaded before the operational hint. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

With 7 parameters at full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need only explain intent and prerequisites, which it does. The remaining minor gap is that it does not hint at what the responses look like, and there is no output schema to cover that.

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% and the enum description already explains each action plus its dependent parameters (source_type, output_format, has_numeric_key, table_size_estimate). The description only mentions that `action` selects the information, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource: 'Get information about FastBCP capabilities, parallelism recommendations, workflow guidance, or binary version' — enumerates exactly the four info categories it serves. It is clearly a metadata tool rather than an export action, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with fastbcp_execute_export/fastbcp_preview_export or with the docs-search 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?

'Use `action` to select what information you need' points the agent at the routing parameter, and 'does not require database connectivity' tells the agent it can be called safely up front. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., search_docs, or calling this before an export), leaving the usage context implied.

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