system_keys_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 genuine value beyond that by disclosing this is a dispatcher with exactly two read endpoints and by pointing to the discovery flow (list_endpoints). It does not mention pagination or return shape, but with no output schema and a read-only profile that is a modest gap.

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 scope and endpoint count, followed by the single required action and the discovery hint. No filler or repetition.

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 the endpoint list, the `name` requirement, and the list_endpoints discovery path. The remaining gap is that it never explains how to supply identifying values (e.g., the path parameter for get_system_key_details), but the schema's path_params field partially covers that.

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 in the schema. The description only restates the `name` semantics (endpoint name from list_endpoints) and says nothing about how body/query/path_params should be filled for these GET-style endpoints, so it adds little 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 and resource (read operations on Fivetran system keys) and even enumerates the two underlying endpoints (get_system_key_details, get_system_keys). An agent can distinguish this from sibling groups like users_read or webhooks_read purely from the name plus this enumeration, without opening the schema.

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 gives a concrete routing instruction: 'Pass the endpoint name in `name`' and 'Call list_endpoints(category='system-keys') for the full list.' That is clear usage context and names a discovery alternative, though it never states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for write operations, which live elsewhere).

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