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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that secret access keys are never returned, which is important behavioral information for an agent.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a valuable security-relevant note. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and the key non-returned value, leaving no significant gaps for correct invocation.

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%: the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'ID of the storage destination to retrieve.' The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Gets') and a specific resource ('a storage destination's configuration, enabled state, and most recent connection test result'). It clearly distinguishes from list_storage_destinations by focusing on a single destination and its detailed settings, and adds a differentiating security detail about secret access keys.

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: when an agent needs a single storage destination's configuration, enabled state, or connection test result. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_storage_destinations or state conditions for choosing this tool over siblings.

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