List tool trust rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which are beneficial for understanding access requirements and safety beyond the annotations.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and directly states the operation and additional technical details about the endpoint and authorization.

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?

While the tool is simple with few parameters and annotations covering safety, the description lacks explanation of what 'tool trust rules' are, what the response contains, and any potential pagination or filtering. Given the output schema exists, some context is missing for a complete understanding.

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 description does not describe the single parameter 'path.companyId' at all (0% schema description coverage). The input schema shows it is a required string but provides no further context. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List tool trust rules', which clearly specifies the verb (list) and resource (tool trust rules). The tool name is long but the description succinctly identifies its purpose, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like the creation endpoint for trust rules.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as posting trust rules or other list operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or typical use cases.

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