ise_ers_search_activedirectory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing beyond the basic search/filter action—no mention of pagination behavior, filtering syntax format, limits, or what happens with empty results. This is a search operation with several undocumented behavioral aspects.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. While extremely brief, it's appropriately front-loaded and there's no redundancy. Its brevity is a positive, though the content it omits is a negative (scored elsewhere).

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is clearly under-specified. There is no explanation of filter expression syntax, no pagination/sorting behavior, no contrast with generic or related sibling tools, and no indication of what results look like. A search/filter tool on a complex resource like Active Directory needs far more contextual detail.

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 only 20% (only the 'deployment' param has a description). The description adds nothing about the 'filter', 'sort', 'page', or 'size' parameters or their formats. The 'filter' parameter in particular is completely unexplained—no ERS filter syntax or examples are given, despite being the core mechanism of the tool.

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 'Search/filter Active Directory with ERS filter expressions' has a clear verb+resource structure, specifying it searches/filters a specific Enterprise Service Router (ERS) resource (Active Directory). It's reasonably distinguishable from sibling _list and _get activedirectory tools, though it could more explicitly contrast with those.

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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ise_ers_list_activedirectory or ise_ers_get_activedirectory. The description only states what it does (search/filter), not when it's preferred over sibling tools, nor what kind of filter expressions are valid or how they differ from generic ise_ers_search.

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