destinations_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful dispatch mechanism (endpoint name multiplexing), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose and endpoint list are front-loaded, followed by the required routing instruction.

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 dispatcher tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the name-multiplexing mechanism and how to discover valid values. It stops short of explaining how body/query/path_params vary per endpoint, though the schema documents those fields.

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 100% and the `name` property description already explains it comes from list_endpoints, so the schema carries the load. The description restates rather than enriches the parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read operations on Fivetran destinations') and enumerates all six concrete endpoints it dispatches to. The category scoping clearly distinguishes it from sibling *_read tools like connections_read or users_read.

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?

Gives explicit routing instructions: pass the endpoint name in `name` and call list_endpoints(category='destinations') to discover valid values. It does not state when NOT to use this tool versus a dedicated endpoint tool, but the category restriction is clear from context.

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