public_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the burden of conveying behavior. It states 'Read operations', indicating this is a non-destructive action, which is useful. However, it omits any details about authentication requirements, response format, error handling, or rate limits. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read operations') and provides the essential directive for endpoint selection. There is no redundant information or 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 generic read tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: it specifies the scope (public), explains how to select endpoints, and references the full endpoint list. It does not describe return types or paging, but given the dynamic nature of the endpoint, this is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the specific context that `name` is the endpoint name within this resource:action group and points to list_endpoints for the full list, but this duplicates the schema's mention of 'Endpoint name within this resource:action group (from list_endpoints)'. It does not add significant new meaning for other parameters like body, query, or path_params beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Read operations on Fivetran public' and identifies the specific endpoint 'metadata_public_connectors'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which target specific categories like account_read or connections_read) by being a generic read for the public API group.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to pass the endpoint name in `name` and to call `list_endpoints(category='public')` for the full list, which provides clear when-and-how usage. Though it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool, the scoping to 'public' and reference to list_endpoints provide sufficient context for selecting alternatives.

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