get_trusted_redirect_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core read behavior ('Get details'), but doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., 404 on not found), auth requirements, or return value structure. Adequate but minimal given no 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?

Single sentence, no filler, all words carry meaning. Front-loaded with the primary verb and object. Efficient for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does and how it identifies the target. Minor gap: no hint about return format, but 'details' implies the response. Acceptable given low complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, with 'id' already described as 'Trusted redirect domain ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get details') and clearly identifies the resource ('trusted redirect domain') plus the lookup key ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create/update/delete/list variants.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description ('get by ID'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. list_trusted_redirect_domains or other alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.

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