sql_endpoint_get_connection_string

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation itself—it does not mention whether the connection string contains credentials, whether it is cached, or any prerequisites. With annotations covering the safe read nature, the description contributes little behavioral insight.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, and every word earns its place. This is an example of efficient, minimal specification.

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?

The tool is simple: two required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does so an agent can call it correctly. While it does not explicitly describe the return value format, the phrase 'Get the TDS connection string' strongly implies the output is the connection string itself. Given the low complexity, this is adequately complete.

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 described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters or their relationship. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('TDS connection string for a SQL endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sql_endpoint_get, which retrieves endpoint metadata, and sql_endpoint_execute_query, which runs queries. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a TDS connection string for a SQL endpoint is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint or warehouse_get_sql_endpoint, which might also return connection-related information. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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