ad_get_domain_trusts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The "[READ]" tag usefully signals a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the call is scoped to the current domain, or latency/DC-availability considerations for a trust enumeration.

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 a single bracketed category tag plus a short phrase — no waste, and the category is front-loaded. But brevity here edges into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness; the tags consume a large share of a very short string.

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 no explanation, and the single parameter is optional. Still, for an AD trust-enumeration tool with zero annotations, the description gives no scope, no permission context, and no indication of what a trust record contains — too thin for correct invocation decisions.

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%, but the only parameter is an optional correlation_id whose name is largely self-explanatory and which has no bearing on the query semantics. The description adds nothing about it, yet little is lost since no functional parameters exist.

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?

"Consultar relacoes de confianca" names a verb (query) and a resource (trust relationships), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it is a bare phrase with no scope detail (domain vs. forest trusts, which domain, one trust vs. all) and it does not distinguish the tool from adjacent domain-inspection siblings beyond the category tag.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like ad_get_domain_info or ad_get_forest_info, no prerequisites (domain membership, credentials), and no exclusions. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the name.

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