identity_search_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns that the tool is deprecated, lists access-policy roles, names the endpoint, and explains that PagedResponse.results contains Group objects. It stops short of describing rate limits or other runtime behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 deprecation warning and replacement API are front-loaded, which is good. However, the access-policy role table is lengthy for a deprecated tool, and the endpoint is repeated in both the description and annotations, adding avoidable bulk without much incremental clarity.

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?

For a deprecated 4-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to understand its status, access rules, response shape, and replacement path. It does not explain how it relates to sibling group-search tools, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to avoid or correctly handle the tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema, including that idpId is ignored and searchTerm uses a contains filter on displayName. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 opening sentence, 'Search for a group,' is a near-restatement of the tool name and gives no scope, such as organization groups versus LDAP groups, to distinguish it from the many sibling group-search tools. The deprecation notice and endpoint add some context, but the core purpose remains vague rather than specifically differentiated.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs callers to use '/scim/v2/Groups' instead, which is clear when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name an MCP sibling tool as the alternative, so the guidance is not fully actionable within the tool set, but the deprecation signal is strong and front-loaded.

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