ise_ers_search_identitygroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about whether this is a safe read operation, how pagination works (page/size defaults exist), what the filter syntax should look like, or what the response format is. For a search tool with no annotation support, it should disclose more about the filter expression format and return behavior.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It has no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (5 params, slice-based pagination, filter syntax), the brevity leaves important information undocumented, so it's not ideal conciseness—it's underspecification.

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?

This is a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description only states the purpose and mentions filter expressions, but doesn't explain the ERS filter expression syntax, pagination semantics, relationship to list_identitygroup, or sort behavior. For a tool with this parameter complexity and zero annotation/output-schema support, the description is materially incomplete.

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 only the deployment parameter documented (target deployment name/slug/number). The page, size, sort, and filter parameters have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The description mentions 'ERS filter expressions' for the filter parameter, which adds some semantic value, but the four core parameters remain underdocumented.

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 'Search/filter Identity Groups with ERS filter expressions,' which identifies the resource (Identity Groups) and the action (Search/filter via ERS). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling list_identitygroup (list all) and get_identitygroup (single item) tools. However, the name already signals most of this, so the description adds modest value beyond a clear verb+resource statement.

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 this is for searching/filtering Identity Groups using ERS filter expressions, which conveys it's the targeted-search alternative to the list variant. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_identitygroup, get_identitygroup, or the generic ise_ers_search, and no exclusions or alternatives are explicitly named. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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