List domain connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping notion of 'domains this server can reach' and that a mode is returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, error/empty behavior, or latency for an environment-probing call. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences: what is returned first, then how to use it. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the actionable chaining hint is last.

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 the return shape and the 'mode' field need no elaboration, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. The description is complete enough for a zero-parameter read; only the edge case of an empty connection list is unaddressed.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The only parameter-like mention (the domain argument of execute) belongs to a different tool, and the description correctly frames it as how to use this tool's output rather than as an input here.

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 (List) and resource (Active Directory domains this server can reach) plus the returned attribute (mode). This cleanly separates it from the mutation siblings connection_add/connection_remove and the query siblings search/execute.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to consume the result: 'Use the alias or the domain name as the domain argument of execute.' That is real chaining guidance rather than an implied context, though it offers no when-not-to-use or alternative-selection rule among the other siblings.

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