list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses default behavior (deprecated hidden) and return structure for the no-args case. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other operational aspects, though for a read-only discovery tool this may be sufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then explaining usage modes and defaults. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers all needed information: default return format, optional parameters, search behavior, and deprecated endpoint handling. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds valuable context: category examples (e.g., 'connections') and search coverage (name, summary, path). This enhances understanding beyond the schema, justifying above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover Fivetran API endpoints' with specific options for category and search. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are resource-specific read operations, as this is a discovery tool for endpoint metadata.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining behavior with no arguments, with category, and with search, as well as how to include deprecated endpoints. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is the discovery tool while siblings are for specific resource reads.

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