eventhouse_get_sql_endpoint

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' aligns with those traits. The description adds the output focus (query service URI and connection details) but does not disclose further behavioral context such as authentication needs, permission requirements, or response variability.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool returns and for which resource type.

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 simple read-only lookup with two fully documented required parameters, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource type and the output. It would benefit from more detail about the exact shape of the returned connection details, especially since there is no output schema, but the tool's low complexity and the safety annotations reduce the gap.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema with 'The workspace ID' and 'The eventhouse ID'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't add any beyond implying the IDs identify the eventhouse whose endpoint is retrieved.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource and payload ('query service URI and connection details for an eventhouse'). It is distinct from sibling tools like lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint and warehouse_get_sql_endpoint because it explicitly scopes the operation to an eventhouse.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs an eventhouse's SQL/query endpoint, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus alternatives such as sql_endpoint_get_connection_string or lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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