private_links_read

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

With no annotations, the description successfully communicates the key read-only behavior and mentions the two available endpoints, which is important safety evidence. However, it describes no response shape, error behavior, or other operational caveats. It meets the minimum bar but could reveal more about what these two endpoints actually return.

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 short sentences that lead with the purpose, enumerate the valid endpoints, and provide a discovery path. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity, full schema coverage, and the sibling *_read family, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, the exact endpoints, and how to obtain the full list. It lacks return format and explicit permission prerequisites, but those are less urgent for a read-only wrapper with a strong schema.

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 input schema already documents name, body, query, and path_params. The description largely restates the name parameter ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and adds only a small discovery hint via list_endpoints(category='private-links'). The schema also mentions POST/PATCH endpoints for body, which sits awkwardly with a read-only tool; the description does not resolve this.

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 opens with 'Read operations on Fivetran private links' and then names both available endpoints (get_private_link_details, get_private_links), giving a specific verb, resource, and precise activity. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling *_read tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is the read-only wrapper for private links. It also directs the agent to list_endpoints(category='private-links') to discover the full endpoint list. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource naming across siblings makes the intended use obvious.

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