metadata_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'read operation' which implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not detail any additional behavioral traits (like authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid endpoint names). The limited scope (2 endpoints) is mentioned, which adds some context.

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, tightly packed with essential information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately tells the user how to get valid endpoint values. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It names the two endpoints, tells how to discover them, and explains the parameter usage. The tool has a clear scope and the description covers it well, though it could mention response format or error handling, but that is not essential for read-only endpoints.

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 100% of the parameters, each with descriptions. The description adds a specific rule for the `name` parameter (use endpoint names from list_endpoints), but body/path_params/query semantics are already clear from the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does significant work, but the description only adds a small tip about `name`.

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 performs read operations on Fivetran metadata and names two specific endpoints. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling read tools (e.g., account_read, connections_read) by specifying the 'metadata' category. It doesn't fully differentiate between the two metadata endpoints, but the explicit verb + resource + scope is clear.

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 tells the user to pass the endpoint name in the `name` parameter and to call list_endpoints(category='metadata') for the full list. This provides clear guidance on how to identify the correct endpoint. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the category-based instruction gives adequate context for selection.

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