connections_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state this is a read-only operation ('Read operations'), and it lists the endpoints, which implies safety. However, it does not describe any error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if an invalid endpoint name is passed. It's adequate for a read-only dispatcher but not rich in detail.

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 a single sentence that packs the core purpose, endpoint list, and usage instruction. The instruction to call list_endpoints for the full list is efficient and avoids duplication. No wasted words.

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 generic dispatcher nature and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage pattern. It lists 9 of 10 endpoints, omitting one but providing a way to discover it. There's no output schema, but for a read dispatcher, the description adequately sets expectations. It could have mentioned response format, but that's likely endpoint-specific.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters are described in the schema. The description adds that `name` should be an endpoint name from list_endpoints, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the interplay between `body`, `query`, and `path_params` for different endpoints, so it adds modest value but does not fully compensate for the generic 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 description clearly states this tool handles read operations on Fivetran connections and lists the 9 specific endpoints it maps to. It also mentions passing the endpoint name in `name`, which clarifies its generic dispatch nature. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the 'connections' scope, and the final '+ 1 more' is slightly vague, though acceptable since it directs to list_endpoints for the full list.

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 tells the user to pass the endpoint name in `name` and directs to call `list_endpoints(category='connections')` for the full list, providing clear how-to guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for write operations, which are presumably handled elsewhere), but the sibling list includes separate tools for other resource types, so the context is reasonably clear.

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