connector_sdk_read

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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the burden is lighter. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that this is a multi-endpoint dispatcher and naming the three operations, which tells the agent what capabilities actually live behind this single tool.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the scope and endpoint inventory come first, followed by the usage and discovery hints. Every clause earns its place.

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 dispatcher tool with no output schema, it covers endpoints, the required parameter source, and the discovery path. It does not describe what the calls return (e.g., whether download yields a package URL or file), a minor gap given the endpoint names are self-explanatory.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the note that `name` comes from list_endpoints. The description reinforces the `name` semantics and adds the concrete discovery call, but this borders on usage guidance rather than adding new parameter meaning — 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 and resource (read operations on the Fivetran connector SDK) and enumerates the three endpoints it dispatches to, so the agent knows exactly what surface is covered. Combined with the resource-specific name, it is clearly distinguishable from the other '_read' siblings.

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?

Explains the dispatch mechanism ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and routes the agent to the discovery alternative ('Call list_endpoints(category='connector-sdk') for the full list'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the operational context is clear.

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