lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms a read-only 'Get' operation without contradicting them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already communicate, such as response shape, error behavior, or relationship to connection strings.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and target resource.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'SQL endpoint details' contains, how it differs from related endpoint tools, or whether it returns connection information. For a getter with no output schema, this level of ambiguity leaves an agent guessing about the return value and how to use it.

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?

The input schema covers both required parameters (workspaceId and lakehouseId) with concise descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but no additional parameter meaning is necessary for this straightforward get-by-identifier operation.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('SQL endpoint details'), and target ('a lakehouse'), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as warehouse_get_sql_endpoint, eventhouse_get_sql_endpoint, or sql_endpoint_get, and 'details' is underspecified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sql_endpoint_get, sql_endpoint_get_connection_string, or lakehouse_get. The usage context is only implied by the name and resource type, not explicitly stated.

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