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 safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of 'available' destinations, but does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, or other behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 short sentence, 'List available publishing destinations,' which is directly front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the simple read-only operation.

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 three optional pagination/filter parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the one-line purpose is mostly sufficient for agent selection and invocation. However, it does not clarify what makes a destination 'available' or provide decision context relative to other publishing/list tools, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%: limit, start, and filter_name each have descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter detail and does not explain how 'available' interacts with filter_name, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('publishing destinations'), clearly stating the operation. It is distinct from sibling list tools by subject matter, though it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'available' or distinguish against a closely related tool.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to invoke this tool instead of other list tools (e.g., list_reports, list_jobs) or whether pagination/filtering should be preferred. The use case is only implied by the tool name and resource, so the agent receives no explicit decision criteria.

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