list_endpoints

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing that deprecated endpoints are hidden unless include_deprecated=true and by explaining the `callable: bool` field — that false means the endpoint is not reachable through this MCP. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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?

Dense and front-loaded — purpose first, then the three argument modes, then the return-shape caveat, then deprecation behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description describes the return shapes for the no-argument and filtered cases and explains the callable flag, so an agent knows what it will receive. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond it: it gives a concrete category example ('connections'), clarifies that omitting the category yields counts, and describes the return payload shape for each mode. It stops short of exhaustive syntax detail, which the schema already supplies.

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 and resource ('Discover Fivetran API endpoints') and unmistakably separates itself from every *_read sibling by being a meta-discovery tool rather than a data reader. The two operating modes are named immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent by argument: no arguments returns counts, `category` narrows to one resource family, `search` substring-matches across name/summary/path. Each mode's trigger condition is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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