get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait beyond that: the returned schema is dynamically reshaped by the `service` parameter for create/modify endpoints. It stops short of noting rate limits or caching, but the dynamic-output disclosure is genuine added value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the parameter nuance. The second sentence is dense (four endpoint names plus the splice concept) but every clause earns its place. No filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return shape (description, parameters, request body, response schema), and both inputs are fully covered by a 100%-coverage schema. For a simple read-only 2-param metadata tool this is essentially complete; only the sibling routing is arguably missing.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema with examples. The description mostly restates the `service` semantics already present in the schema ('Only meaningful for create/modify connection or destination endpoints'), so it adds only marginal meaning beyond structured data — the baseline 3.

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?

Clear specific verb + resource: 'Return the full schema for a Fivetran endpoint,' and it enumerates exactly what is returned (description, parameters, request body schema, response schema). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_endpoints or the various *_read tools within the description text itself — that routing hint lives only in the parameter schema.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance for one input: pass `service` on create_connection/modify_connection/create_destination/modify_destination to splice in per-service config. It gives no guidance on when to call get_schema versus list_endpoints or the *_read siblings, so tool-level usage is only implied.

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