mcp-activedirectory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Advanced user search' but lacks behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 that front-loads the core functionality ('Advanced user search') and enumerates key fields. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a search tool with well-documented parameters in the schema.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the search purpose and some fields but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, result format) and doesn't mention all parameters. With 100% schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in usage and transparency.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists five searchable fields (name, email, department, job title, phone number), which adds context beyond the schema by grouping them as 'any field,' but it omits 'upn,' 'max_results,' and 'source' from this summary. It doesn't provide additional semantic details like field relationships or search logic.

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 as 'Advanced user search by any field' and lists the specific fields (name, email, department, job title, phone number). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user' (singular retrieval) and 'list_users' (unfiltered listing) by emphasizing search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly mention all schema fields like 'upn' or 'source'.

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 usage context through 'Advanced user search by any field,' suggesting this is for filtered queries rather than simple listing. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name specific alternatives like 'list_users' for unfiltered results or 'get_user' for single-user retrieval, leaving some ambiguity.

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