mcp-activedirectory

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by name or description but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word serves a clear function, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain the return format, result limitations, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient, especially compared to richer sibling tools in the server.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name or description' as search fields, but this is redundant with the schema. It doesn't provide additional context like search syntax or interactions between parameters, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search groups by name or description.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('groups'), and indicates the searchable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'get_group', which reduces clarity about when to choose this over those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_groups' or 'get_group'. It mentions searchable fields but doesn't explain scenarios where searching is preferable to listing or getting specific groups, nor does it reference any sibling tools for context.

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