proxy_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It successfully communicates the non-destructive read-only nature and the three supported endpoints, providing baseline context. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, authentication assumptions, or rate-limit implications, which would enrich the agent's understanding for edge cases.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences—yet packs in the tool's purpose, the endpoint scope, and clear next-step instructions. Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's role as a dynamic dispatcher (relying on list_endpoints for full context), the description provides sufficient scaffolding for an agent to proceed effectively. While it could detail more about response shapes or error scenarios, the actionable direction to list_endpoints mitigates this gap and is appropriate for the tool's design.

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?

Although the schema already covers parameter definitions at 100%, the description adds decisive value by specifying how to obtain valid endpoint names and that `name` is the required dispatcher field. This turns a generic schema into an actionable workflow, though it could have provided examples for the `query` or `path_params` usage.

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 this handles 'Read operations on Fivetran proxy' and enumerates the three exact endpoints, which accurately reflects the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the proxy resource and read-only nature.

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 instruction to 'Pass the endpoint name in `name`' and to 'Call list_endpoints(category='proxy') for the full list' provides actionable guidance on usage. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools imply clear resource separation.

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