private_links_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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the endpoint count/names, which is scope information rather than new behavioral detail; nothing is said about pagination, error behavior on an unknown endpoint, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the dispatch instructions. The parenthetical endpoint list is compact, though the middle clause slightly interrupts the flow between purpose and guidance.

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 generic by-name dispatcher with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: the resource scope, the dispatch mechanism, and the way to discover valid endpoint names. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when an invalid `name` is passed.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. "Pass the endpoint name in `name`" restates the schema and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Read operations on Fivetran private links") and narrows the scope further by enumerating the exact two endpoints it wraps. This lets an agent distinguish it from the other *_read dispatchers (proxy_read, webhooks_read, etc.) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the concrete discovery path: "Call list_endpoints(category='private-links') for the full list." That tells the agent how to obtain valid `name` values. It does not state when-not to use this group versus a sibling read group, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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