list_email_security_trusted_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral transparency. Saying 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, return shape, permissions, or whether only enabled/trusted entries are returned.

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, direct verb phrase with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, though slightly too skeletal to convey broader context, so it does not reach 5.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still does not explain what a trusted domain is, what the response looks like, or how this differs from list_email_security_domains. An agent would have to guess about selection criteria and expected behavior.

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?

The input schema documents account_id as 'The account ID' with 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List,' and a specific resource, 'email security trusted domains,' so an agent can tell this returns trusted-domain records. It does not contrast with the similarly named sibling list_email_security_domains, which prevents a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_email_security_domains or list_email_security_allow_policies. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose correctly.

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