warehouse_get_sql_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention whether credentials are returned, whether authentication is required, or what form the SQL connection details take.

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. It conveys the core operation and resource type immediately and efficiently.

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, the parameters are fully documented by the schema, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, since there is no output schema, the description leaves the exact contents of 'SQL connection details' ambiguous, which an agent may need to know to use the result confidently.

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 the parameters warehouseId and workspaceId are already documented by the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SQL connection details for a warehouse'), which separates it from the broader warehouse_get by clarifying it is about connection details. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint or sql_endpoint_get_connection_string, but the warehouse context in both name and description provides adequate direction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains several similar get_sql_endpoint tools for other resource types, but the description offers no routing or exclusionary context.

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