connections_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dispatcher structure (12 endpoints, required name) which is useful context, but nothing about return shape, pagination, or auth. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint inventory before the mechanics. The list compresses well, though the truncated '+ 4 more' enumeration is slightly awkward for an agent trying to see full coverage.

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 multi-endpoint dispatcher with no output schema, the description supplies the essential discovery workflow (list_endpoints) and how to invoke sub-endpoints. Return values are necessarily defined by each endpoint rather than this wrapper, so the omission is acceptable, leaving only minor 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 100%, so the schema already documents name, body, query, and path_params. The description's guidance to pass the endpoint name largely restates what the schema's `name` field already says ('from list_endpoints'), adding only marginal value. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read operations) and resource (Fivetran connections) and enumerates the sub-endpoints covered, making the dispatcher nature unmistakable. An agent can immediately tell this group handles connections reads versus the other resource groups in the sibling 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to pass the endpoint name in `name` and to call list_endpoints(category='connections') to discover the full set, which is a clear usage workflow. It lacks any when-not-to-use note (e.g., pointing to write endpoints), so it falls short of a 5.

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