ise_ers_search_ldap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states it can search/filter but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (page/size defaults), sorting semantics, whether filter is required, what fields are filterable, or error behavior. The schema has page/size/sort/filter params but the description doesn't contextualize their 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, efficient sentence with no filler. However, it's somewhat under-specified given the low schema coverage and absence of annotations, so while concise, it doesn't fully leverage the space for needed context.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. The tool has 5 parameters with 80% undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't explain filter expression syntax, pagination, sorting options, or what the response contains. For a search tool among a crowded family of ise_ers_search_* siblings (networkdevice, endpointgroup, internaluser, etc.), it should clarify the LDAP-specific filter fields but doesn't.

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 'deployment' is documented). The description adds the concept of 'ERS filter expressions' but doesn't explain the filter syntax or format. The page/size/sort/filter parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description doesn't compensate. Baseline 3 per rules since coverage is low but description at least signals the filter mechanism exists.

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 clearly states verb (search/filter), resource (LDAP Identity Sources), and mechanism (ERS filter expressions). It distinguishes from generic ise_ers_search by being specific to LDAP. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling ise_ers_list_ldap or ise_ers_get_ldap beyond the 'search/filter' phrasing, and doesn't explain what 'search' returns vs list.

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 on when to use search vs list vs get for LDAP sources. The description mentions 'ERS filter expressions' but doesn't explain how to construct them or point to the generic ise_ers_search / ise_ers_resources for filter syntax reference. No exclusions or alternative tool references provided.

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