Search objects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the query-language mechanism and that the tool is an exploratory/reporting primitive, but never states plainly that it is read-only and non-mutating, nor does it warn about filter-syntax failure modes; the display-name-vs-OID remark is a cross-cutting convention rather than a behavioral trait of this call. The presence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values, which keeps this at 3 rather than lower.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is the weak point: it addresses writing to people and requests, which belongs on a mutation tool's description and is not earned by this tool's surface area.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation and only three inputs, the description is close to sufficient for correct invocation. What is missing is the routing information an agent actually needs: how this differs from search_users and the list_* siblings, and any notion of result volume or paging behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 100%, so the schema already documents type, limit (default 20, max 100) and filter with a worked example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond labeling the filter as "midPoint query-language"; the example report types hint at filter shapes but supply no syntax. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("filtered search across midPoint object types") and enumerates the six supported types, which maps directly to the type parameter. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling search_users, nor from list_roles/list_resources, so an agent cannot fully resolve which search path to take from the text alone.

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?

Concrete use-case framing is given ("ad-hoc reports (orphaned accounts, unused roles, disabled users with access)"), which implies when to reach for it. However there are no exclusions or alternatives named — nothing says when to prefer search_users or get_user instead — and the closing sentence about "when you write to a person" is guidance for a different operation, not this one, which muddies rather than sharpens usage.

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