sql_endpoint_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that by describing a read operation. The description adds that the response includes the connection string, which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or response shape, but with the annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the most important return detail. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the sibling sql_endpoint_get_connection_string makes it unclear whether an agent should call this tool or that one for connection-string-only needs. The description also does not mention the return structure, and with no output schema, that gap matters more.

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 both workspaceId and sqlEndpointId are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond identifying what the tool does. Baseline 3 is appropriate here since the schema carries the parameter load.

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 and resource: 'Get details of a specific SQL endpoint, including connection string.' It communicates a specific lookup operation and distinguishes itself from list-style tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling sql_endpoint_get_connection_string, which creates some ambiguity about 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sql_endpoint_list, sql_endpoint_get_connection_string, or the per-resource get_sql_endpoint variants. Usage context is only implied by the word 'specific,' with no exclusions or routing guidance.

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