List Domain Controllers

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the underlying flag filter and the fact that results carry standard computer attributes. It says nothing about result volume, default 100-limit behavior, or what happens when a domain is not specified.

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, front-loaded with the definition and immediately followed by the exact filter. Nothing is wasted or repetitive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out and the 'usual computer attributes' note is sufficient there. But with two undocumented parameters and no usage routing, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: neither 'limit' nor 'domain' is mentioned. In particular, the meaning of 'domain' (target a different domain vs. default to the connected one) is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the domain controllers') and pins down the exact predicate used ('computer accounts flagged as DCs', SERVER_TRUST_ACCOUNT userAccountControl). That predicate is what separates it from the generic find_computers/get_computer siblings, though those siblings are never named.

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 is implied by the resource name – enumerate DCs – but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing advice against find_computers, search_ldap, or get_computer, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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