roles_read

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses this is a safe read-only operation ('Read operations') and reveals the internal implementation detail that this is a thin wrapper around an endpoint dispatcher. It does not describe response formats, pagination, or failure modes, but for a generic dispatcher with a single read-only endpoint, the disclosure is adequate, earning a solid 3.

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 focused sentences, both earning their place: the first states what the tool covers, and the second gives the single critical usage instruction. Information is front-loaded with no filler or 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?

For a generic dispatcher tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description with its pointer to list_endpoints for the authoritative endpoint list is sufficient. The agent can enumerate available endpoints dynamically rather than needing hardcoded documentation. A brief note about return format would push it to a 5.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `name` accepts an endpoint name from list_endpoints and that exactly one endpoint (list_all_roles) is available, which disambiguates the primary parameter's valid values. However, the description does not elaborate on `query`, `path_params`, or `body` semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Read operations on Fivetran roles' with the concrete endpoint name 'list_all_roles'. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools by naming the exact resource group (roles), and the instruction to use list_endpoints for the full endpoint list disambiguates from the other *_read siblings.

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 description explicitly instructs how to invoke the tool ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and points to an alternative/complementary tool for endpoint discovery: 'Call list_endpoints(category='roles') for the full list'. This provides clear context and an explicit alternative, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases since this is effectively the designated read dispatcher.

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