List SAP BTP destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: secrets are redacted, destinations can come from local environment variables or the cloud Destination Service, and cloud fetching is conditional on configuration.

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 two dense but purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core behavior and scope, and the second gives actionable follow-up guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema properties.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and side-effect hints, the description supplies the remaining essential context: the sources of destinations, redaction of secrets, and how the returned names should be used. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 includeDestinationService parameter is already documented in the schema, including its default and network implication. The description does not repeat or add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') with a clear resource ('SAP BTP destinations') and immediately distinguishes the tool from related OData tools by framing destinations as inputs to query_odata_data and download_odata_service_metadata. It also clarifies the scope: local destinations and optionally cloud destinations.

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 explicit downstream usage: 'Use the returned destination names with query_odata_data and download_odata_service_metadata.' This tells an agent what to do with the results, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus the sibling get_btp_destination.

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