Get Destination

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' conveys a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, what happens if the destination is not found, or any access requirements. It provides basic transparency but leaves room for more explicit safety information.

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 front-loaded sentence: 'Get one destination linked to a container.' It contains zero filler and each word contributes to the meaning. No redundant detail, ideal length for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The agent needs only the three IDs, all documented in the schema, and the output format is covered elsewhere. No critical information 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%, with each parameter (account_id, container_id, destination_id) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states 'Get one destination linked to a container' – a specific read verb with a resource and scope. The singular 'one' and 'linked to a container' differentiate it from sibling tools like list_destinations and link_destination. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'Get one destination' implies use when a single destination is needed, contrasting with list_destinations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_destinations or link_destination, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage is implied but not stated.

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