Get a SAP BTP destination (secrets redacted)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral fact that secrets are redacted, which is critical for an agent. It also clarifies that it returns local or BTP Destination Service sources. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the added context goes beyond the structured fields.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and returning fields, followed by the redaction note and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema is present (as indicated), the return values are defined. The description enumerates the key fields and the redaction behavior, and provides a usage context. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is complete; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the 'name' parameter with 'Destination name (see list_btp_destinations)'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond that. Per the baseline, when schema coverage is high, a 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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'details of one SAP BTP destination', enumerating specific fields (URL, authentication type, sap-client, custom headers, proxy type). It also distinguishes from the sibling list_btp_destinations by specifying 'one' and mentions query_odata_data, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Useful to verify a destination before querying it with query_odata_data.' This implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list_btp_destinations is clearly for listing, and the description's mention of 'one' implies selection. The context is clear enough, though not exhaustive.

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