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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the activation_capable filter constrains results to only those destinations the downstream schema/connect tools support, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the key noun and no redundancy. The second sentence is dense with routing information but every clause (filter, entry-point role, downstream consumers) earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with strong annotations, the definition covers purpose, routing, and the key filter semantics. With no output schema, an agent still lacks any sense of what a returned destination record looks like at the top level, whether results are paginated, and why workspace_id is mandatory.

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 coverage is 67% and activation_capable plus destinationDefinitionName are both well documented inline, including the preserved rudderAccountId context. The description reinforces the activation_capable meaning but adds no syntax, format, or default guidance, and workspace_id remains undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ("List destinations in the workspace") and further scopes the second sentence to activation-capable destinations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_destination or get_destination_definitions, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use direction: pass activation_capable=true as the entry point for data-graph audience activation flows, and names the downstream tools (get_audience_destination_schema / connect_audience_destination) that consume the results. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or pointing to get_destination_definitions as the alternative for definition-level lookups, which the schema hints at.

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