groups_read

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: this is a fan-out router with 6 discrete sub-endpoints, and the required `name` value comes from list_endpoints. It stops short of noting per-endpoint input differences (e.g., which need path_params or body).

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste: purpose and endpoint list first, then the invocation contract, then the discovery pointer. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 router-style tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient: it names all endpoints and the discovery path. The only minor gap is not flagging that different sub-endpoints require different path_params or body payloads.

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 body/query/path_params semantics are fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces that `name` is an endpoint identifier from an enumerated set and does not add format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (read operations on Fivetran groups) and enumerates the exact 6 endpoints it dispatches to, so the agent knows precisely what surface it covers. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling *_read tools covering other resources.

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 invocation contract (pass the endpoint name in `name`) and routes the agent to list_endpoints(category='groups') for discovery. It gives clear context for using the tool but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it versus calling list_endpoints or a more specific sibling directly.

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