list_unusual_destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: no DNS lookups are performed and unlisted/missing domains are deliberately not assessed, which tells the agent the result set is bounded by static telemetry rules. Return format/pagination is still unstated, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the selection criteria are front-loaded and the scoping caveats follow. The limit note at the end is compact, though the first sentence is syntactically dense enough to slow parsing.

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 no output schema, the description should say more about what each destination entry contains (matched rule, associated process, domain). It also omits the default limit and how snapshot_id is sourced, so while the safety profile is covered by annotations, the agent is left guessing about the shape of results.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: it documents the limit range (1–100) but not its default or ordering behavior, and says nothing about what snapshot_id identifies or how to obtain one. That is only half the compensation a 0%-coverage two-parameter schema needs.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair ("List destinations") and defines the selection criteria: explicit possible-telemetry rule matches or connections associated by name with unusual process findings. It is dense with domain jargon, but an agent can tell what is being returned and that it differs from siblings like list_findings or explain_process.

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 description never says when to reach for this tool instead of a sibling such as list_findings or compare_to_peers, and gives no prerequisites beyond the implicit snapshot. The "no DNS queries" and "missing domains are not assessed" lines scope the results but are not usage routing guidance.

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