umbrella_list_destinations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds little beyond the tool name: there is no mention of pagination, default limits, response shape, authorization requirements, or whether the list is ordered or filtered. For a read tool this is a modest gap, but still leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains only the essential information: the verb, the resource, the scope, and the type of data returned. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple list operation, the description covers the core intent, and the schema handles parameter details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left unaware of the response format, pagination behavior, or any defaults for limit/offset. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter guidance in the description. The description does not add parameter semantics, but the schema fully documents destinationListId, limit, offset, and the additionalParams escape hatch, so no compensation is needed.

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') with a clear resource ('destinations... contained in a specific destination list') and explicitly enumerates what counts as a destination (domains/URLs/IPs). It distinguishes itself from sibling umbrella_list_destination_lists by emphasizing 'specific destination list' rather than listing the lists themselves.

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 phrase 'in a specific destination list' provides clear context: use this when you already have a destination list ID and need its members. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to avoid confusing it with listing networks, users, or destination lists as a whole.

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