get_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns a full schema and clarifies the special behavior of the `service` parameter (splicing in the per-service config shape for specific endpoint families). It does not mention side effects, but this is a read-only schema lookup and the behavior described is sufficiently transparent for its purpose.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the essential parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple schema-lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return contents and the nuanced `service` parameter behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the 100% parameter schema coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that `service` is needed specifically for create/modify connection and destination endpoints to splice in the per-service config shape. The `name` parameter is also contextualized by the schema description referencing list_endpoints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full schema for a Fivetran endpoint' and enumerates the included content (description, parameters, request body schema, response schema). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like list_endpoints by focusing on schema introspection for a single endpoint.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining when to pass the optional `service` parameter: on create_connection, modify_connection, create_destination, and modify_destination endpoints. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the schema parameter description ('Discover via list_endpoints') and the tool's unique purpose imply appropriate usage.

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