teams_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does a good job: it immediately demonstrates that this tool is a logical container for multiple read endpoints (8 listed), that `name` is the dispatcher, and that `list_endpoints` is the authoritative source for discovering them. It also implies read-only behavior ('Read operations') and avoids promising unsupported behavior. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but for a family of GET-like endpoints, this is a reasonable and transparent disclosure. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that there are no side effects or authentication details, but the read-only framing covers most practical needs. It doesn't contradict the (missing) annotations or schema.

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?

Exactly two dense, information-rich sentences. The first sentence states the tool's specific purpose and lists all 8 endpoints. The second gives a direct instruction to the agent ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and explicitly references the proper discovery mechanism. No fluff, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 required param, 3 optional, no enums, no output schema required), the description is quite complete: it explains what to do with `name`, where to find the full list, and even gives the specific endpoint names as examples. It doesn't explain return values, but with no output schema and a purely read-oriented concern, that's acceptable. The only missing piece is a note about read-consistency or respective error handling, but those are edge cases for this kind of tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the structured data already documents each parameter. The description adds value by telling the agent that `name` should be an endpoint name from `list_endpoints(category='teams')`, and `path_params` will be filled with placeholders like `{connectionId}` and `{groupId}`. This bridges the gap between a generic `path_params` object and the actual dynamic segments in the API. The only reason it doesn't get a 5 is that it doesn't provide examples of what `body` or `query` might look like, but the schema already covers the basics.

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?

Purpose is explicitly stated as 'Read operations on Fivetran teams,' with a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('Fivetran teams'), and a concrete list of 8 endpoint names that anchor its scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like teams_write or teams_get, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose and scope.

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 gives clear usage context by naming the exact endpoint function (`get_team_membership_in_connection`, etc.) and instructs the agent to pass the endpoint name in `name`. It also directs to `list_endpoints(category='teams')` for the full list, which serves as an alternative reference. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use this tool or mention read-only alternatives, though the 'Read operations' prefix and the explicit endorsement of the generic `list_endpoints` helper serve as a de facto exclusion criterion.

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