airbyte_get_destination_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return content (name, Docker image, connector specification), which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. It uses clear sections ('When to Use', 'Examples') to organize information. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the return fields.

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 simple tool (3 parameters, one optional) and the presence of a output schema (indicated), the description covers the main points: purpose, return content, and usage context. It lacks parameter details but is otherwise complete for the agent's needs.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. However, it only provides an example with workspace_id and definition_id, but does not describe the parameters individually. The optional response_format parameter (with enum default) is not mentioned at all. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter meaning.

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 details of a specific destination connector definition' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like airbyte_get_source_definition and airbyte_get_destination by focusing on connector definitions. The examples reinforce the purpose.

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 'When to Use' section provides two specific use cases: inspecting what a connector provides and checking Docker image version. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like list_destination_definitions.

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