get_sql_pool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds two genuinely useful facts beyond the name: the workspace admin role requirement and the beta/preview API warning. However, it discloses nothing about the return shape, error behavior, or lack of side effects, which leaves gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 well structured: purpose sentence first, then compact arg docs, then two one-line caveats. Only minor waste is 'pool_name: The pool name', which echoes the schema title, but overall the text is tight and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter get-by-name tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, both parameters, the admin-role precondition, and API stability. The two notable omissions are the explicit return-value format (no output schema exists to cover it) and differentiation from get_sql_pools_status, but the core invocation needs are met.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for workspace ('Workspace name or GUID'), which is valuable beyond the schema's bare string type. But 'pool_name: The pool name' merely restates the property title and adds no meaning about format, uniqueness, or qualification.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return details for a single SQL pool by name.' This clearly identifies a singular-get operation and distinguishes it from siblings like list_sql_pools (plural listing) and get_sql_pools_status (status-specific). The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides useful context (requires workspace admin role, targets a beta/preview API) but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sql_pools or get_sql_pools_status. Usage is implied rather than stated; no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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