List Publishing Destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the vague qualifier 'available' and does not clarify scope, ordering, or permissions, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely concise, with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler words. It is slightly too terse to add meaningful context beyond the title, but there is no unnecessary prose.

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 a complete input schema, strong read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema available, the description does not need to repeat return-value or safety details. The main gap is explaining what counts as an 'available' publishing destination, but this is a low-complexity tool and the surrounding structured metadata carries most of the burden.

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 all three parameters (limit, start, filter_name) are already documented with defaults. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact or what filtering entails.

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 names a specific action (List) and resource (publishing destinations), making the basic operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate among the many list_* sibling tools, but the resource name is distinct enough to avoid direct confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any connection to related publishing workflows or sibling publish_* tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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