roles_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. The description adds the scope constraint that only one endpoint exists in this group, but says nothing about pagination, auth, or response shape.

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, front-loaded with the resource and endpoint count, then the invocation rule. Minimal waste, though the `name` instruction slightly restates the schema.

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 read-only dispatcher with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the resource scope, the endpoint count, and the discovery mechanism. It could note that responses are read-only endpoint payloads, but nothing essential is 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that `name` carries the endpoint identifier and points to list_endpoints for valid values, but adds no format or constraint details beyond 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+resource: read operations on Fivetran roles, and names the sole endpoint (list_all_roles). An agent can distinguish it from the other *_read dispatchers by the 'roles' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling.

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?

Clearly instructs how to select the endpoint ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and where to discover the valid values ('Call list_endpoints(category='roles')'). It gives forward routing rather than when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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