metadata_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description only adds that the tool is scoped to a curated two-endpoint set; it says nothing about pagination, response shape, or auth, so with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and endpoint list front-loaded before the discovery hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only wrapper over two endpoints with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly: valid endpoint names and how to discover more. It could note that `body` is only needed for write-style endpoints, but the schema already covers that.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the two concrete endpoint names accepted by `name` (the schema has no enum), and by pointing to list_endpoints as the source of valid values.

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 (Read) and resource (Fivetran metadata), and names the two endpoints it covers (metadata_connector_config, metadata_connectors). This lets an agent distinguish it immediately from siblings like connections_read or users_read, which target other resource groups.

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?

Tells the caller to pass the endpoint name in `name` and to call list_endpoints(category='metadata') to discover the full set, which is clear procedural guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions, so it is not a full 5.

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