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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the endpoint path (GET /destination-presets) and the fan-out purpose, but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result formatting, or rate limits. With strong annotation coverage, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 beginning with the HTTP verb and endpoint, followed by a clear purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 clear annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. With no output schema and six parameters including pagination controls (limit, cursor, offset), the lack of any mention of paginated results or return value shape leaves a real gap. The description is sufficient for a simple list, but not fully complete for this parameter set.

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 only 33% — only query and workspace_id have descriptions. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (limit, cursor, offset, brand_id), leaving pagination semantics and brand filtering unexplained. It adds only the workspace-scoping context, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 ('list') and resource ('workspace destination presets'), with a clear scope and domain purpose ('for multi-channel fan-out'). It is distinct from sibling tools like aidelly_create_destination_preset and aidelly_preview_destination_preset by operation type.

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 the usage context (retrieving destination presets for multi-channel fan-out) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus creating or previewing presets, nor does it name alternative tools. The workspace_id parameter description in the schema adds some operational guidance, but the main description offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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