public_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 covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the dispatch-by-name pattern and the size of the endpoint group, but says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or the shape of returned data.

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, front-loaded with the verb/resource and scope, then the required parameter, then the discovery call. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 parameterized dispatcher over a single endpoint, the description plus the 100%-covered schema give an agent enough to invoke it correctly; the discovery pointer closes the main gap. It is slightly thin on return shape, but no output schema exists and the description need not carry return semantics.

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 (name, body, query, path_params) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that `name` must come from list_endpoints, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that.

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 names a specific verb and resource (read operations on Fivetran public endpoints) and discloses the exact scope of the group (1 endpoint: metadata_public_connectors). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing at list_endpoints, though the generic 'public' group name is not self-explanatory.

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?

It explains the dispatch mechanism ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and routes the agent to list_endpoints(category='public') to discover valid values. That is clear usable context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling *_read tools or when it would fail.

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