external_logging_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 useful behavioral context: this is a dispatcher spanning exactly three named endpoints and requires discovery through list_endpoints. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but that is reasonable given the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key invocation instruction and discovery route. Every sentence 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 read-only dispatcher, the description supplies the essential calling information: the covered endpoint names, where to find the full list, and how to pass the endpoint name. It does not describe return shape, but the tool is read-only and has no output schema, so this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already documents `name` as coming from list_endpoints. The description repeats that guidance and provides the three endpoint names as examples, but adds no syntax or constraints for `body`, `query`, or `path_params`. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read operations on Fivetran external logging. It names the three covered endpoints and clearly scopes the tool to that resource group, making it distinguishable from sibling *_read tools.

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?

It tells the agent to pass the endpoint name in `name` and to call list_endpoints(category='external-logging') for the full list. This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other resource-read siblings.

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