list_destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which are consistent with listing. The description adds value by specifying the required auth scope and listing the channel types returned, going beyond the annotation information without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The auth requirement is front-loaded, followed by the core action and channel types, then a practical next step. Every clause adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description explains the return scope (all destinations and their types) and how to use the results (routing rules). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to successfully call and leverage this tool.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% with no properties), so the description carries no burden for parameter documentation. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 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?

Description states the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all notification destinations') and enumerates the channel types (email, webhook, Slack, Discord, Telegram). This fully distinguishes it from siblings like create_destination, update_destination, and test_destination.

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?

Provides the prerequisite of API key scope ('read scope or higher') and a direct follow-up use case ('Use channel IDs to configure routing rules for monitors'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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