ise_ers_search_adminuser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals this is a search operation (implying read-only), but does not state pagination behavior, result count limits, what happens with no match, or filter expression syntax/format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, important behavioral context is missing.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It conveys the core purpose directly. However, given the total lack of behavioral and parameter detail, brevity here approaches under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, though the sentence itself is well-formed and front-loaded with the verb.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this search tool description is under-specified. The deployment parameter gets separate documentation indicating multi-deployment awareness, but filter expression syntax, pagination defaults, and sort behavior are all undocumented. A search tool of this complexity should provide filter format details and result-count expectations.

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%, with 5 parameters (page, size, sort, filter, deployment). The description adds no parameter-specific details whatsoever - it does not explain filter expression syntax, sort format, or pagination semantics. Only the 'deployment' parameter has inline schema documentation. The description fails to compensate for the 80% uncovered parameters, though the deployment guidance partially offsets this.

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 Admin Users with ERS filter expressions' clearly states the verb (search/filter), resource (Admin Users), and mechanism (ERS filter expressions). It distinguishes from siblings like ise_ers_list_adminuser (which lists without filtering) and ise_ers_get_adminuser (which retrieves a single item). Clear purpose, though terse.

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 implies use for searching/filtering, which somewhat distinguishes it from list/get counterparts visible in sibling tools. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use ERS filter expressions vs. alternatives, no examples of filter syntax, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The 'ERS filter expressions' hint is useful but not developed.

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