get_sql_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns details (a read operation), requires admin role, and uses a beta API. There is no mention of side effects, which is acceptable for a get-like tool. The description does not contradict any annotations as none exist.

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 three sentences: purpose, parameters, then role and API status. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant information.

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 has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key contextual aspects: admin role requirement and beta API status. While it could mention that the operation is read-only, that is implied by 'Return details.' The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds explicit meanings for both parameters: 'workspace: Workspace name or GUID' and 'pool_name: The pool name.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this provides essential clarity beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 'Return details for a single SQL pool by name', specifying the verb (return), resource (SQL pool), and scope (by name). This distinguishes it well from siblings like list_sql_pools (multiple pools) or get_sql_pools_configuration (configuration details).

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 usage context by stating 'Requires workspace admin role' and noting the tool targets a beta/preview API. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_sql_pools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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