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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of GET endpoint adds minimal extra value. The description does not discuss authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the id is not found. With annotations covering readOnly, the description provides only marginal additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint. Every word 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 this simple tool (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It specifies the operation and endpoint. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning typical usage or response structure, but given the simplicity, it is enough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing the 'id' parameter as a numeric id passed as a string. The tool description itself does not add any semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('destination connection'), and the method ('by id'). It also includes the REST endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'census_list_destinations' and other 'census_get_*' tools that retrieve different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and context imply it should be used when you have a specific ID and need a single destination, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to list tools.

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