destinations_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that these are 'Read operations', implying non-destructive behavior, but adds no further context about permissions, return formats, or error cases.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second gives the critical usage instruction. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

The description lists all endpoints, clarifies the mandatory name parameter, and points to list_endpoints for discoverability. In the absence of an output schema, it could have elaborated on return structures, but the endpoint names themselves convey expected data types.

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%, yet the description adds meaningful value by listing the six valid endpoint names for the `name` parameter, which would otherwise be an unconstrained string. This directly aids invocation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Read operations on Fivetran destinations' and enumerates all six covered endpoints, making it distinct from sibling 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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: 'Pass the endpoint name in `name`' and directs users to list_endpoints for the full endpoint list. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives for other resource categories, so it stops short of a 5.

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