ad_get_dc_services_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and the only behavioral signal is the '[READ]' tag, which is not a structured guarantee. It does not say which services are checked, what permissions or connectivity to the DC are needed, or what a failure condition looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with the category and read tag front-loaded. There is no waste, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing.

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 explained. Still, for a diagnostics tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description omits the essentials: which services are covered and what the 'server' parameter does.

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, and the description says nothing about 'server' (presumably which DC to query) or 'correlation_id'. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a verb and resource ('Consultar estado dos servicos essenciais do DC') plus a category tag [Replication, Health & Diagnostics], so the general intent is legible. However, 'servicos essenciais' is undefined, and it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as ad_get_directory_health, ad_get_sysvol_status, or ad_get_replication_status.

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 bracketed category implies a diagnostics context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this instead of ad_get_directory_health or ad_get_domain_controller_info.

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