proxy_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dispatch behavior (3 named endpoints, discovery via list_endpoints), but says nothing about response shape, pagination, or per-endpoint differences beyond the names.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the scope plus the three valid endpoint names are front-loaded ahead of the discovery hint. Nothing could be cut without losing routing information.

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 dispatch tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description supplies the essential pieces: what it covers, how `name` maps to endpoints, and where to get the authoritative list. Only per-endpoint distinctions or response notes are 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 body/query/path_params/name are all documented in the schema itself. The description only clarifies that `name` must be one of the three proxy endpoints from list_endpoints, which mildly reinforces but does not extend the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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), the resource (Fivetran proxy), and enumerates the three covered endpoints (get_proxy_agent, get_proxy_agent_connections, get_proxy_agent_details). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the many sibling *_read dispatchers, which are scoped to other categories.

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 tells the agent to pass the endpoint name in `name` and to call list_endpoints(category='proxy') for the full list, which is the routing path for this dispatcher. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., that other categories belong to sibling tools), leaving that to inference from the sibling names.

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