list_destinations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists destinations and returns configuration/status, but it does not disclose that 'all' may be subject to pagination via the limit parameter, potentially misleading the agent. It also does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'list' implies it. The description adds minimal context beyond what the schema already provides.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action, resource, and return content. There is no redundant or filler wording; every word contributes, making it concise and effectively front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable. It provides the essential purpose and return scope ('configuration and status'), but lacks explicit notes on pagination behavior, response format, or safety profile. Since the schema covers pagination parameters, the missing details are not critical, but the overall completeness is adequate rather than rich.

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 for both parameters (limit and cursor) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameter usage, defaults, or how they affect the result, but given the schema already covers these, no further description is necessary to reach the baseline.

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 ('List all destinations'), the resource type ('destinations'), and the scope ('in the account'). It also specifies what information is returned ('configuration and status'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_connections by focusing on the destinations resource.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_connections, get_connection_details, or get_connector_metadata. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about the relationship between destinations and connections. No usage context beyond the basic listing action is provided.

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